NEW  GUIDES  TO  OLD  MASTERS 
BY  JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE 

PRICB 

I.  London — National  Gallery,  Wallace  Collection. 
With  a  General  Introduction  and  Bibliog- 
raphy for  the  Series net  $1.00 

II.     Paris — Louvre net      .75 

III.     Amsterdam — Rijks  Museum  } 

The  Hague — Royal  Gallery    >  bound  together  .  net      .75 
Haarlem — Hals  Museum       ) 

V.     Munich — Old  Pinacothek      } 

Frankfort — Staedel  Institute  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 
Cassel — Royal  Gallery  ) 

VI.     Berlin— Kaiser-Friedrich       } 

Museum  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Dresden — Royal  Gallery        ) 
VII.     Vienna — Imperial  Gallery    ^ 

Budapest — Museum  of  Fine  >  bound  together  .  net    1.00 

Arts                                      ) 
VIII.     St.  Petersburg— Hermitage In  Press 

IX.     Venter-Academy  I  bound  together  .  In  Press 

Milan — Brera,  Poldi-Pezzoh  ) 

X.     Florence — Ufflzi,  Pitti,  Academy      ....  In  Press 

XI.    Borne— Vatican,  Borghese  Gallery   ....  In  Press 

XII.    Madrid— Prado  In  Press 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  SERIES 

NATIONAL  GALLERY 
WALLACE  COLLECTION 


TITIAN:     ARIOSTO 

The  National  Gallery,  London 


NEW     GUIDES      TO      OLD      MASTERS 

LONDON 

CRITICAL  NOTES  ON  THE  NATIONAL 
GALLERY  AND  THE  WALLACE  COLLEC- 
TION, WITH  A  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 
AND  BIBLIOGRAPHY  FOR  THE  SERIES 


BY 
JOHN  C.  yAN  DYKE 

AUTHOB  OF  "AST  FOB  ABT*8   SAKE,"    "THE  MEANING   OF   PICTURES,' 

"HISTOBY  OF  PAINTING,"  "OLD  DUTCH  AND 

FLEMISH   MASTEBS,"    ETC. 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S   SONS 
1914 


HI030 

Y3 


COPYRIGHT,  1914,  BT 
CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

Published  April,  1914 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

THERE  are  numerous  guide-books,  catalogues,  and 
histories  of  the  European  galleries,  but,  unfortunately 
for  the  gallery  visitor,  they  are  either  wholly  descrip- 
tive of  obvious  facts  or  they  are  historical  and  ar- 
chaeological about  matters  somewhat  removed  from  art 
itself.  In  them  the  gist  of  a  picture — its  value  or  mean- 
ing as  art — is  usually  passed  over  in  silence.  It  seems 
that  there  is  some  need  of  a  guide  that  shall  say  less 
about  the  well-worn  saints  and  more  about  the  man 
behind  the  paint-brush;  that  shall  deal  with  pictures 
from  the  painter's  point  of  view,  rather  than  that  of 
the  ecclesiastic,  the  archaeologist,  or  the  literary  ro- 
mancer; that  shall  have  some  sense  of  proportion  in 
the  selection  and  criticism  of  pictures;  that  shall  have 
a  critical  basis  for  discrimination  between  the  good  and 
the  bad;  and  that  shall,  for  these  reasons,  be  of  ser- 
vice to  the  travelling  public  as  well  as  to  the  art  student. 

This  series  of  guide-books  attempts  to  meet  these 
requirements.  They  deal  only  with  the  so-called  "old 
masters."  When  the  old  masters  came  upon  the 
scene,  flourished,  and  ceased  to  exist  may  be  deter- 
mined by  their  spirit  as  well  as  by  their  dates.  In 
Italy  the  tradition  of  the  craft  had  been  established 
before  Giotto  and  was  carried  on  by  Benozzo,  Botti- 


vi  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

celli,  Raphael,  Titian,  Tintoretto,  even  down  to  Tie- 
polo  in  the  eighteenth  century.  But  the  late  men, 
the  men  of  the  Decadence,  are  not  mentioned  here 
because  of  their  exaggerated  sentiment,  their  inferior 
workmanship — in  short,  the  decay  of  the  tradition  of 
the  craft.  In  France  the  fifteenth-century  primitives 
are  considered,  and  also  the  sixteenth-century  men, 
including  Claude  and  Poussin;  but  the  work  of  the 
Rigauds,  Mignards,  Coypels,  Watteaus,  and  Bouchers 
seems  of  a  distinctly  modern  spirit  and  does  not  be- 
long here.  This  is  equally  true  of  all  English  painting 
from  Hogarth  to  the  present  time.  In  Spain  we  stop 
with  the  School  of  Velasquez,  in  Germany  and  the 
Low  Countries  with  the  seventeenth-century  men. 
The  modern  painters,  down  to  the  present  day,  so  far 
as  they  are  found  in  the  public  galleries  of  Europe, 
will  perhaps  form  a  separate  guide-book,  which  by  its 
very  limitation  to  modern  painting  can  be  better 
treated  by  itself. 

Only  the  best  pictures  among  the  old  masters  are 
chosen  for  comment.  This  does  not  mean,  however, 
that  only  the  great  masterpieces  have  been  considered. 
There  are,  for  instance,  notes  upon  some  three  hun- 
dred pictures  in  the  Venice  Academy,  upon  five  hun- 
dred in  the  Uffizi  Gallery,  and  some  six  hundred  in 
the  Louvre  or  the  National  Gallery,  London.  Other 
galleries  are  treated  in  the  same  proportion.  But  it 
has  not  been  thought  worth  while  to  delve  deeply  into 
the  paternity  of  pictures  by  third-rate  primitives  or 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  vii 

to  give  space  to  mediocre  or  ruined  examples  by  even 
celebrated  painters.  The  merits  that  now  exist  in  a 
canvas,  and  can  be  seen  by  any  intelligent  observer, 
are  the  features  insisted  upon  herein. 

In  giving  the  relative  rank  of  pictures,  a  system  of 
starring  has  been  followed. 

Mention  without  a  star  indicates  a  picture  of  merit, 
otherwise  it  would  not  have  been  selected  from  the 
given  collection  at  all. 

One  star  (*)  means  a  picture  of  more  than  average 
importance,  whether  it  be  by  a  great  or  by  a  medi- 
ocre painter. 

Two  stars  (**)  indicates  a  work  of  high  rank  as  art, 
quite  regardless  of  its  painter's  name,  and  may  be  given 
to  a  picture  attributed  to  a  school  or  by  a  painter  un- 
known. 

Three  stars  (***)  signifies  a  great  masterpiece. 

The  length  of  each  note  and  its  general  tenor  will  in 
most  cases  suggest  the  relative  importance  of  the  picture. 

Catalogues  of  the  galleries  should  be  used  in  con- 
nection with  these  guide-books,  for  they  contain  much 
information  not  repeated  here.  The  gallery  catalogues 
are  usually  arranged  alphabetically  under  the  painters' 
names,  although  there  are  some  of  them  that  make 
reference  by  school,  or  room,  or  number,  according  to 
the  hanging  of  the  pictures  in  the  gallery.  But  the 
place  where  the  picture  may  be  hung  is  constantly 
shifting;  its  number,  too,  may  be  subject  to  alteration 
with  each  new  edition  of  the  catalogue;  but  its  painter's 


viii  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

name  is  perhaps  less  liable  to  change.  An  arrangement, 
therefore,  by  the  painters*  names  placed  alphabetically 
has  been  necessarily  adopted  in  these  guide-books. 
Usually  the  prefixes  "de,"  "di,"  "van,"  and  "von" 
have  been  disregarded  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names. 
And  usually,  also,  the  more  familiar  name  of  the  artist 
is  used — that  is,  Botticelli,  not  Filipepi ;  Correggio,  not 
Allegri;  Tintoretto,  not  Robusti.  In  practical  use  the 
student  can  ascertain  from  the  picture-frame  the  name 
of  the  painter  and  turn  to  it  alphabetically  in  this  guide- 
book. In  case  the  name  has  been  recently  changed, 
he  can  take  the  number  from  the  frame  and,  by  turning 
to  the  numerical  index  at  the  end  of  each  volume,  can 
ascertain  the  former  name  and  thus  the  alphabetical 
place  of  the  note  about  that  particular  picture. 

The  picture  appears  under  the  name  or  attribution 
given  in  the  catalogue.  If  there  is  no  catalogue,  then 
the  name  on  the  frame  is  taken.  But  that  does  not 
necessarily  mean  that  the  name  or  attribution  is 
accepted  in  the  notes.  Differences  of  view  are  given 
very  frequently.  It  is  important  that  we  should  know 
the  painter  of  the  picture  before  us.  The  question  of 
attribution  is  very  much  in  the  air  to-day,  and  consider- 
able space  is  devoted  to  it  not  only  in  the  General  In- 
troduction but  in  the  notes  themselves.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  whole  question  of  authorship  is  passed 
over  in  favour  of  the  beauty  of  the  picture  itself.  It 
is  always  the  art  of  the  picture  we  are  seeking,  more 
than  its  name,  or  pedigree,  or  commercial  value. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES  ix 

Conciseness  herein  has  been  a  necessity.  These 
notes  are  suggestions  for  study  or  thought  rather  than 
complete  statements  about  the  pictures.  Even  the 
matter  of  an  attribution  is  often  dismissed  in  a  sentence 
though  it  may  have  been  thought  over  for  weeks. 
If  the  student  would  go  to  the  bottom  of  things  he 
must  read  further  and  do  some  investigating  on  his 
own  account.  The  lives  of  the  painters,  the  history  of 
the  schools,  the  opinions  of  the  connoisseurs  may  be 
read  elsewhere.  A  bibliography,  in  the  London  vol- 
ume, will  suggest  the  best  among  the  available  books 
in  both  history  and  criticism. 

The  proper  test  of  a  guide-book  is  its  use.  These 
notes  were  written  in  the  galleries  and  before  the  pic- 
tures. I  have  not  trusted  my  memory  about  them,  nor 
shall  I  trust  the  memory  of  that  man  who,  from  his 
easy  chair,  declares  he  knows  the  pictures  by  heart. 
The  opinions  and  conclusions  herein  have  not  been 
lightly  arrived  at.  Indeed,  they  are  the  result  of  more 
than  thirty  years'  study  of  the  European  galleries. 
That  they  are  often  diametrically  opposed  to  current 
views  and  beliefs  should  not  be  cause  for  dismissing 
them  from  consideration.  Examine  the  pictures,  guide- 
book in  hand.  That  is  the  test  to  which  I  submit  and 
which  I  exact. 

Yet  with  this  insistence  made,  one  must  still  feel 
apologetic  or  at  least  sceptical  about  results.  However 
accurate  one  would  be  as  to  fact,  it  is  obviously  impos- 
sible to  handle  so  many  titles,  names,  and  numbers 


x  PREFACE  TO  THE  SERIES 

without  an  occasional  failure  of  the  eye  or  a  slip  of  the 
pen;  and  however  frankly  fair  in  criticism  one  may 
fancy  himself,  it  is  again  impossible  to  formulate  judg- 
ments on,  say,  ten  thousand  pictures  without  here  and 
there  committing  blunders.  These  difficulties  may  be 
obviated  in  future  editions.  If  opinions  herein  are 
found  to  be  wrong,  they  will  be  edited  out  of  the  work 
just  as  quickly  as  errors  of  fact.  The  reach  is  toward 
a  reliable  guide  though  the  grasp  may  fall  short  of  full 
attainment. 

It  remains  to  be  said  that  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  George  B.  McClellan  for  helpful  suggestions  re- 
garding this  series,  and  to  Mr.  Sydney  Philip  Noe  not 
only  for  good  counsel  but  for  practical  assistance  in 
copying  manuscript  and  reading  proof. 

JOHN  C.  VAN  DYKE. 
RUTGERS  COLLEGE,  1914. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

THE  student  in  almost  any  public  gallery  quickly 
discovers  that  there  is  vast  importance  attached  to 
names.  The  name  of  a  great  artist  on  a  picture-frame 
looks  so  well,  it  carries  such  conviction,  it  means  so 
much  to  the  imagination.  When  the  name  of  Raphael 
is  pronounced  critics  and  connoisseurs  grow  eloquent, 
directors  and  collectors  become  recklessly  extravagant, 
the  general  public  falls  down  and  worships.  A  Leonardo 
or  a  Giorgione  draws  the  crowd  like  a  magnet  where  a 
Solario  or  a  Pordenone  leaves  it  indifferent.  What 
wonder,  then,  that  the  famous  names  are  used  wherever 
a  superficial  resemblance  will  lend  plausibility?  Direc- 
tors and  collectors  are  very  human.  The  wish  that 
their  picture  may  be  a  Raphael  is  father  to  the  thought 
that  it  is  a  Raphael.  The  wish  for  a  Leonardo  has  re- 
sulted in  numerous  school  pieces,  some  works  of  pupils 
and  imitators,  some  old  copies,  and  an  occasional  forgery 
being  laid  at  that  master's  door,  and  the  temptation  of 
Giorgione  has  been  so  great  that  his  name  is  still  being 
used  to  father  the  canvases  of  Cariani  and  Romanino, 
who  imitated  his  manner.  These  errors  of  directors 
and  historians,  with  the  misrepresentations  of  collectors, 
the  name-forgeries  of  dealers,  the  eager  substitution 
of  shop  work,  pupil's  work,  copyist's  work  for  master's 

xi 


xii  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

work  are  sources  of  great  confusion.  The  student 
must  reckon  with  them.  Aside  from  the  rank  injus- 
tice to  the  great  masters  of  having  spurious  canvases 
assigned  to  them  one  finds  it  impossible  to  build  either 
history  or  criticism  on  such  false  bases. 

Thus  it  is  that  the  student,  at  the  very  start,  is  called 
upon  to  deal  with  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
gallery  pictures.  It  is  necessary  that  he  should  know 
exactly  what  it  is  he  is  looking  at  if  he  would  arrive  at 
a  correct  estimate  of,  say,  Raphael,  Rembrandt,  or 
Rubens.  If  the  Raphael  is  a  Giulio  Romano  with  hot 
flesh  and  cold  drapery,  if  the  Rembrandt  is  a  softly 
modelled  head  by  Lievens,  if  the  Rubens  is  a  glassy 
Seghers  or  a  flashy  Cossiers  then  the  student  in  ac- 
cepting them  as  genuine  is  gravely  mistaken,  is  indeed 
led  astray.  He  gains  a  false  conception  of  the  masters 
and  their  work,  and  it  may  take  him  years  to  change  it. 
He  should  be  inoculated  with  honest  doubt  at  the 
start;  he  should  understand  that  all  is  not  Raphael 
that  glitters,  and  that  Titians  do  not  grow  along  every 
gallery  wall.  The  matter  will  admit  of  some  further 
elaboration. 

WORKSHOP  PICTURES 

In  the  ancient  days  it  was  often  the  custom  of  mas- 
ters to  sign  their  names  to  every  picture  that  went  out 
of  their  shop  whether  they  painted  it  or  not.  The 
name  of  Giovanni  Bellini  was  put  on  pictures,  not  so 
much  to  say  that  he  did  them,  as  to  indicate  that  they 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xiii 

came  from  his  bottega  or  shop,  and  were  guaranteed  as 
good  works  of  art.  These  pictures,  painted  largely 
perhaps  by  pupils  and  assistants,  came  to  be  sold  and 
catalogued  as  Bellini's  own  work  when  he  had  merely 
designed  them,  or  possibly  put  the  finishing  touches 
upon  them.  The  name  of  Rubens  was  used  in  a  sim- 
ilar manner.  His  canvases  are  in  almost  every  Euro- 
pean gallery.  They  are  so  numerous  and  so  large 
that  we  know  it  was  physically  impossible  for  him  to 
have  done  them  all.  He  never  even  pretended  that 
they  were  his  own  individual  work.  Frequently,  in 
sending  out  canvases  that  had  been  ordered,  he  declared 
them  "done  by  my  best  pupil"  and  "touched  by  my 
own  hand."  He  was  the  head  of  a  great  picture  fac- 
tory at  Antwerp  for  many  years,  and  in  that  factory 
he  did  little  more  than  design  what  his  pupils  and  as- 
sistants executed.  These  pictures  are  by  no  means 
as  good  as  the  pictures  done  by  Rubens  himself,  yet 
they  pass  on  the  wall  and  in  the  catalogue  as  works 
by  the  master's  own  hand.  Almost  every  Rubens  in 
the  Prado  at  Madrid  is  of  this  workshop  variety,  and 
yet  the  Prado  is  famed  for  its  fine  examples  of  Rubens. 
Now,  this  workshop  picture  is  not  merely  a  matter  of 
Bellini  and  Rubens.  Every  old  master  of  the  first  or 
even  the  second  rank  had  his  modicum  of  pupils  and 
assistants  and  maintained  his  workshop  where  pictures 
of  perhaps  not  the  best  quality  were  turned  out  for 
churches  and  patrons  not  too  learned  or  exacting.  In 
Italy,  where  the  attribution  of  pictures  has  been  more 


xiv  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

thoroughly  studied  than  elsewhere,  the  shop  work 
of  Botticelli,  Perugino,  Raphael,  Leonardo,  Titian — 
to  mention  only  a  few  prominent  examples — is  well 
known  and  rightly  listed  by  connoisseurs  even  though 
the  gallery  directors  and  custodians  do  not  always  ac- 
cept their  conclusions.  North  of  the  Alps,  however, 
there  is  still  a  disposition  to  give  everything  to  the 
master  without  discrimination.  How  often,  for  in- 
stance, does  one  see  a  Cranach,  or  a  Holbein,  or  a 
Diirer  catalogued  as  a  school  piece?  Is  it  supposable 
that  they  never  had  assistants  who  helped  them  on 
backgrounds  and  draperies  though  they  may  not  have 
painted  eyes  and  noses?  Think  of  the  scores  of  Van 
Dyck  portraits  in  the  European  galleries,  think  of  his 
prodigious  success,  think  of  his  many  imitators  and 
followers;  yet  when  and  where  do  you  meet  with  pic- 
tures referred  to  Van  Dyck's  workshop?  If  we  had 
nothing  but  the  pictures  to  go  by  we  could  be  sure  he 
employed  assistants  and  used  the  services  of  pupils 
because  the  pictures  themselves  reveal  the  work  of 
different  hands.  This  is  true  again  of  Rembrandt's 
pictures.  We  know  the  names  of  a  score  of  Rembrandt's 
pupils  who  worked  in  his  shop,  and  much  of  the  appren- 
tice work  of  the  pupil  in  those  days  was  helping  the 
master  with  his  pictures.  Rembrandt  undoubtedly 
availed  himself  of  their  industry,  supervised  their  work, 
perhaps  finally  signed  it  and  sold  it  as  his  own.  It  was 
the  custom  of  the  time — a  ways  and  means  of  main- 
taining the  shop. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xv 

This  shop  work  must  be  closely  considered  by  the 
student  of  art.  It  is  inferior  work  and  if  accepted  as 
by  the  master's  own  hand  it  establishes  a  false  criterion 
of  that  master.  Oftentimes  painters  are  inferior  or 
careless  in  certain  parts  of  their  work,  but  the  inferi- 
ority of  a  Titian  is  vastly  different  from  even  the  supe- 
riority of  an  assistant.  It  is  a  different  tale  of  the  brush, 
quite  another  story.  In  the  case  of  Van  Dyck  it  is  not 
believable  that  he  personally  did  many  of  the  portraits 
and  figure-pieces  now  under  his  name.  Some  of  the 
portraits  are  too  ill-drawn,  too  feebly  painted,  too 
lacking  in  verve,  while  many  of  the  figure-pieces  (some 
of  those  in  the  Vienna  Gallery,  for  instance),  are  men- 
tally too  weak  for  a  painter  of  Van  Dyck's  rank.  They 
are  shop  works,  replicas,  copies,  which  the  improvidence 
of  Van  Dyck  may  have  countenanced,  though  they  did 
violence  to  his  artistic  sense.  As  for  Rubens,  he  had 
the  surest  eye  and  handled  the  most  certain  brush  of 
any  painter  north  of  the  Alps.  There  are  numerous 
pictures  by  him  showing  this  absolute  certainty,  this 
unerring  skill  with  the  brush.  When,  therefore,  you  see 
pictures  put  down  to  him  (as  in  the  Medici  Series  in 
the  Louvre,  for  instance)  containing  passages  of  this 
certainty  in  the  principal  figures,  with  other  passages 
in  the  subordinate  parts  that  are  very  uncertain,  what 
are  you  to  conclude?  Ordinarily  you  might  assign  it 
to  the  painter's  want  of  interest,  his  carelessness  in  the 
subordinate  parts.  But  Rubens  never  was  careless. 
He  is  always  correct,  always  quite  right.  The  assis- 


xvi  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

tants  in  his  shop,  however,  were  less  skilled,  less  learned; 
and  it  is  to  them  that  you  may  attribute  the  inferior 
portions  of  the  canvases.  Again  (in  that  same  Medici 
Series)  you  will  find  pictures  where  no  touch  whatever 
of  the  Rubens  brush  is  apparent.  The  design,  the 
composition,  the  types  may  be  the  only  things  in  the 
picture  that  point  to  the  master.  All  of  the  execution 
may  be  by  pupils  and  assistants.  In  such  cases  you 
have  the  shop  piece  pure  and  simple.  It  is  merely  a 
translation  of  Rubens  and  has  lost  most  of  its  force  in 
process,  yet  it  is  under  his  name  and  passes  current 
with  the  general  public  as  by  his  hand.  The  worst  of 
it  is  that  such  work  is  often  accepted  as  the  master's 
work  by  critics  and  historians  and  gets  into  history. 
There  it  often  proves  disconcerting  and  contradictory. 

SCHOOL  PIECES 

After  the  shop  piece  comes  the  school  piece — some- 
thing perhaps  a  little  farther  removed  from  the  master, 
but  still  resembling  him  superficially  and  capable  of 
making  much  trouble  for  the  student.  A  master  such 
as  Rembrandt,  for  example,  had  many  pupils  and  fol- 
lowers who  painted  in  his  general  manner  because  they 
were  taught  the  manner  in  the  shop,  and  after  they 
had  left  the  shop  found  it  profitable,  perhaps,  to  con- 
tinue in  that  manner.  Almost  every  pupil  follows  in  the 
master's  footsteps  at  first.  If  he  has  individuality 
he  eventually  outgrows  his  master's  point  of  view  and 
method,  but  if  he  has  not  individuality  he  continues 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xvii 

to  echo  his  master  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  These 
echoes  have  often  proved  very  deceptive.  Bol,  Backer, 
Eeckhout,  Flinck,  Fabritius,  Lievens  did  many  works 
in  their  early  days  that  in  the  subsequent  shuffle  of  art 
became  known  as  Rembrandts.  They  are  still  so  known 
and  are  the  more  willingly  accepted  because  they  have 
Rembrandt's  forged  signature  on  them.  Owners  and 
dealers  had  the  signatures  put  on  for  purposes  of  sale — 
the  name  of  Rembrandt,  of  course,  selling  for  more 
than  that  of  Bol  or  Backer.  In  some  cases  the  delusion 
of  their  being  Rembrandts  still  holds  because  the  mis- 
take is  undetected;  in  other  cases  (with  collectors  and 
gallery  directors,  for  instance)  because  there  is  a  wish 
to  boast  of  such  and  such  a  number  of  Rembrandts. 
The  pride  of  The  Hermitage  at  St.  Petersburg  is  forty 
or  more  Rembrandts — the  finest  collection  of  Rem- 
brandts in  existence,  we  are  told.  But  thirty  out  of 
the  forty  are  school  pieces  or  workshop  performances, 
and  of  the  scant  remainder  there  is  only  one  Rembrandt 
— the  so-called  Sobieski — of  the  highest  quality.  Some 
of  them  are  so  certainly  by  pupils  that  the  identity  of 
the  pupils  is  suggested  in  these  notes. 

Rembrandt,  Rubens,  and  Van  Dyck  are  the  names 
the  most  flagrantly  abused  at  the  present  time,  but  it 
was  only  a  few  years  ago  that  Botticelli  was  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  work  of  Botticini  and  the  so-called 
Amico  di  Sandro,  that  Leonardo  received  the  credit  or 
discredit  for  the  performances  of  Salaino  and  Gian- 
pietrino,  that  Perugino  was  made  sponsor  for  half  the 


xviii  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

sweet-faced  Madonnas  coming  out  of  Umbria.  The 
pupil  following  after  was  mistaken  for  the  master.  It 
is  astonishing,  even  now,  how  readily  a  superficial  re- 
semblance in  art  passes  current  for  the  real  thing. 
Any  one  can  recognise  a  counterfeit  when  captured  and 
shown  at  the  cashier's  window,  but  how  many  hands 
it  passed  through  as  good  money  before  it  was  detected! 
Lest  the  simile  mislead  let  it  be  said  that  the  great 
majority  of  pupils'  pictures  were  never  painted  to 
deceive,  and  that  they  were  never  used  to  deceive  until 
they  encountered  the  cupidity  of  dealers  and  the  pride 
of  collectors  and  directors.  The  pupils  of  Raphael 
painted  in  Raphael's  manner  simply  because  they  were 
so  taught  and  never  outgrew  their  teaching. 

IMITATIONS  AND  FORGERIES 

Even  in  the  case  of  an  imitator — a  pupil  or  follower 
of  the  master  who  seeks  to  reproduce  the  master's 
effects — there  is  usually  no  attempt  to  deceive,  no 
wish  to  make  any  one  believe  that  he  is  looking  at  the 
master's  work  instead  of  the  pupil's.  Again,  the  de- 
ception comes  about  after  the  imitator  is  dead  and  his 
canvas  has  passed  into  the  possession  of  some  one  with 
a  commercial  instinct.  It  is  the  dealer  or  collector 
who  palms  off  a  Mazo  for  a  Velasquez,  not  Mazo  him- 
self. Tiepolo's  son,  Domenico,  and  II  Greco's  son, 
Jorge,  both  followed  their  fathers  quite  frankly,  imitat- 
ing their  methods  because  they  had  not  originality 
enough  to  do  otherwise;  but  it  was  a  later  and  a  more 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xix 

canny  generation  that  sold  the  work  of  the  sons  for 
that  of  the  fathers  until  to-day  Domenico  and  Jorge 
have  hardly  a  picture  left  to  them.  One  often  wonders 
what  becomes  of  the  panels  of  pupils  and  followers. 
Strange,  is  it  not,  that  Rembrandt  should  have  five 
hundred  or  a  thousand  canvases  still  preserved  to  him 
while  his  score  of  pupils  have  hardly  a  score  of  pictures 
among  them?  And  stranger  still  that  Rubens  should 
have  three  thousand  pictures  and  his  forty  or  more  in- 
dividually known  pupils  not  half  a  dozen  apiece,  and 
some  of  them  not  a  single  picture. 

The  forgery  is  different  from  the  imitation  in  that  it 
is  usually  an  attempt  to  deceive  on  the  part  of  the 
painter.  Dietrich  was  a  latter-day  imitator  of  Rem- 
brandt but  not  a  forger  in  any  sense.  The  forger  is 
usually  of  more  modern  extraction — a  clever  parasite 
who  preys  on  the  collector.  His  methods  are  many. 
Sometimes  he  paints  a  Sienese  primitive  on  an  old 
chestnut  or  poplar  panel,  utilising,  perhaps,  the  old 
gilding  of  the  ground  and  even  the  tooling  and 
stamping  of  the  patterns.  He  glazes  and  bakes  his 
colours,  scumbles  and  varnishes  his  surface,  worms  his 
frame  and  batters  it  in  a  revolving  hopper.  At  other 
times  he  takes  a  fifty-year-old  canvas  and  paints  you 
a  glib  Daubigny,  an  astonishing  Corot  that  passes 
muster  under  the  noses  of  the  experts  at  the  Hotel 
Drouot.  The  ingenuity  of  the  forger  is  really  entitled 
to  more  consideration.  If  applied  to  honest  work  it 
might  achieve  distinction. 


xx  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

The  forgery  is  a  simon-pure  counterfeit,  and  directly 
it  comes  under  suspicion  it  usually  begins  to  show  lapses 
and  ring  hollow.  Some  telltale  circumstance  of  panel, 
canvas,  colour,  gilding,  or  handling  usually  proves  its 
undoing.  They  still  exist;  they  are  still  being  manu- 
factured. The  Uffizi  has  one  or  two  of  recent  acquisi- 
tion that  are  still  hanging  in  the  gallery.  Last  year  the 
Louvre  came  into  possession  of  a  fifteenth-century 
Flemish  Madonna  of  a  suspicious  nature  that  holds  a 
place  in  one  of  the  small  cabinets,  and  at  Dresden  they 
keep  one  on  the  wall,  presumably  as  an  awful  example; 
but  usually  the  European  galleries  are  not  embarrassed 
by  them.  The  forged  signature,  however,  can  be  found 
almost  everywhere.  At  the  Brussels  Gallery  the  pic- 
ture No.  196  has  two  signatures  (Van  Goyen's  and 
Cuyp's)  and  three  dates,  which  suggest  the  enterprise 
of  its  various  owners.  Paul  Potter's  name  on  pictures 
by  Verbeecq  and  Isaac  van  Ostade  is  not  infrequent, 
Rembrandt's  signature  appears  again  and  again  on 
pictures  now  frankly  given  to  Bol,  Maes,  and  others, 
while  Albrecht  Diirer's  monogram  is  still  conveniently 
used  on  pictures  painted  by  his  contemporaries  and  fol- 
lowers. Indeed,  the  forged  signature  and  date  are  so 
common  that  all  signatures  and  dates  have  come  to 
be  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  They  are  usually  dis- 
regarded unless  the  picture  itself  by  its  internal  evi- 
dence confirms  or  corroborates  them. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxi 

REPLICAS  AND  COPIES 

The  replica  in  theory  is  a  reproduction  or  copy  by 
the  painter  himself  of  one  of  his  own  successful  pictures; 
but  in  practice  it  is  more  often  a  reproduction  or  copy 
made  by  one  of  his  pupils  or  assistants.  When  Philip 
IV  wished  to  present  his  portrait  to  some  distant 
European  monarch  he  did  not  give  Velasquez  a  new 
sitting  but  asked  him  to  make  a  copy  of  an  already 
existing  portrait  which  perhaps  he  liked.  Velasquez 
sometimes  did  this,  producing  a  bona  fide  replica,  but 
more  often,  being  engaged  in  other  work,  he  would 
order  his  son-in-law,  Mazo,  to  make  the  copy.  Mazo, 
perhaps,  would  pass  the  order  down  the  workshop  to 
some  one  like  Pareja  or  even  a  less  talented  assistant, 
and  the  result  would  be  not  a  Velasquez  replica  but 
a  school  copy  of  the  portrait.  Neither  the  king  nor 
Velasquez  cared  much  about  the  picture  so  long  as  the 
likeness  was  apparent  and  the  picture  satisfied  the 
foreign  potentate  for  whom  it  was  done. 

But  this  ancient  practice  of  the  masters  has  been 
quoted  to  uphold  many  questionable  pictures  of  the 
present  day — pictures  that  are  flat  copies  and  nothing 
more.  Every  famous  painter  had  his  copyists.  In  the 
days  of  Reynolds  no  small  part  of  the  pupil's  appren- 
ticeship was  spent  in  copying  his  master's  pictures. 
That  was  the  way  he  learned  drawing  and  handling. 
The  master's  Death  of  Dido,  for  instance,  set  up 
as  a  model  and  copied  several  times  by  some  bright 


xxii  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

pupil,  perhaps,  finally  results  in  a  picture  that  some 
one  buys  for  ten  pounds  and  takes  up-country  to 
hang  in  an  ancestral  hall.  After  three  or  four  gen- 
erations have  passed  away  perhaps  the  history  of  the 
picture  is  forgotten.  Grimed  with  dust  and  dirt,  it 
may  still  hang  upon  the  wall  and  tradition  call  it 
Reynolds's  Death  of  Dido.  Presently  there  is  a  col- 
lapse in  the  family  fortunes,  the  pictures  are  sent  up 
to  London  to  be  sold,  and  we  shortly  hear  from  the 
auction  room  that  there  is  a  Reynolds  Death  of 
Dido  in  the  collection — "a  replica  of  the  picture  in 
the  king's  possession  at  Windsor."  And  the  delusion 
carries  through  to  the  end.  Some  American  million- 
aire buys  the  "Reynolds"  at  a  fabulous  sum  and  gets 
the  apprentice's  ten-pound  copy  for  his  collection. 

In  the  days  of  the  old  masters  every  famous  work- 
shop in  Europe  produced  its  copies,  which  were 
afterward  sold  in  the  auction  rooms  as  replicas. 
Some  of  them  are  now  hanging  on  the  walls  of  the 
European  galleries  and  are  called  not  replicas  but  orig- 
inals. The  student  meets  with  them  and  is  perhaps 
led  astray  by  them.  An  old  copy  that  has  been  rubbed 
and  cleaned,  repainted  and  varnished  until  the  original 
surface  is  hidden,  becomes  quite  a  puzzle  even  to  the 
expert.  Some  of  them,  perhaps,  are  done  by  painters 
of  ability  and  are  well  drawn  and  decently  handled. 
It  used  to  be  the  custom  for  the  graduate  of  a  studio 
and  even  established  painters  to  spend  a  year  or  so  in 
foreign  lands  copying  the  great  masters.  It  is  so  still. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

These  painters'  copies,  grown  old  and  darkened  by 
time,  are  perhaps  the  most  perplexing  pictures  of  all 
to  place  rightly.  If  they  are  very  good  they  are  gen- 
erally told  from  the  original  by  their  individuality.  A 
copy  of  Titian  by  Rubens,  for  instance,  shows  Titian's 
composition  but  Rubens's  brush-work,  palette,  and  feel- 
ing. Even  a  modern  copy  of  Titian  by,  say,  Manet 
will  declare  itself  to  be  a  Manet  more  positively  than 
a  Titian.  On  the  contrary,  a  poor  copy  of  Titian, 
whether  old  or  new,  will  declare  itself  by  its  lack  of 
individuality,  by  its  timidity  in  drawing  and  its  weak- 
ness in  handling.  The  professional  copyist,  knowing 
his  own  insufficiency,  works  with  great  care  and  pro- 
duces timidity  by  his  solicitude.  His  picture  lacks 
spirit  and  verve.  It  wants  in  force  and,  if  it  is  a  por- 
trait, it  wants  in  life.  The  student  may  see  precisely 
this  kind  of  a  copy  in  the  National  Gallery,  London,  in 
the  portrait  assigned  to  Rembrandt,  No.  672.  Con- 
noisseurs and  experts  regard  it  as  a  genuine  Rembrandt; 
but  it  is  only  a  careful  French  copy. 

In  early  pictures  where  the  handling  is  less  pro- 
nounced the  problem  of  originals  and  copies  is  a  little 
more  difficult.  This  is  peculiarly  the  case  with  such 
primitives  as  the  Van  Eycks,  Gerard  David,  Roger  van 
der  Weyden.  The  brush-work  is  smooth  and  cannot 
always  be  relied  upon,  but  in  its  place  one  must  be 
guided  by  the  drawing,  the  modelling,  the  contours, 
the  textures,  and  the  general  quality  of  the  workman- 
ship. The  copy  betrays  itself  quite  readily  in  these 


xxiv  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

features.  There  is  timidity  about  the  line,  want  of 
knowledge  about  the  modelling  of  the  figures,  niggling 
and  repetition  in  hills  or  trees  or  clouds,  flatness  in 
colour,  deadness  in  textures,  disparity  in  tone,  or  some 
other  disturbing  feature  that  betrays  the  copyist. 
Copies  after  the  Italian  or  French  primitives  may  be 
detected  in  the  same  way.  Timidity  and  want  of 
verve  are  the  great  failing  of  the  average  copyist.  A 
Giotto,  a  Clouet,  a  Van  der  Weyden  are  not  afraid  of 
slipping  over  a  line  or  misplacing  a  light  or  shade,  for 
they  know  they  can  amend  any  error  they  commit; 
but  the  copyist  is  limited  to  the  pattern  before  him 
and  he  dares  not  go  beyond  it.  A  forger  copying  a 
signature  on  a  check  works  with  the  same  timidity 
and  is  detected  finally  in  the  same  way. 

PRINCIPLES  OF  CONNOISSEURSHIP 

Just  here  the  inexperienced  student  of  art  may  pro- 
test that  he  has  been  pushed  into  the  higher  criticism 
of  pictures  before  being  told  of  the  lower  strata,  that 
it  is  useless  to  refine  upon  the  slight  differences  between 
David,  Isenbrandt,  and  Patinir  or  to  puzzle  over  a 
Procaccino  imitation  of  Correggio,  when  he  knows  not 
David  from  Rubens  nor  Correggio  from  Lucas  van 
Leyden.  He  wants,  perhaps,  the  primary  elements  of 
expertism  to  begin  with.  How  does  one  recognise  any 
old  master? 

This  is  not  the  place  for  an  elaborate  treatise  on  the 
principles  of  connoisseurship.  The  subject  would  re- 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxv 

quire  two  volumes  instead  of  two  pages,  such  are  its 
ramifications  and  complications.  Still  the  main  guid- 
ing principles  may  be  suggested  without  elaboration. 

You  tell  one  old  master  from  another  old  master 
precisely  as  you  recognise  your  different  friends  on  the 
street — that  is,  by  acquaintanceship,  familiarity,  knowl- 
edge of  each  peculiar  appearance.  The  longer  and 
better  your  acquaintance  the  more  certain  your  recog- 
nition. There  is  no  key  or  clew  or  trick  whereby  you 
can  detect  this  or  that  painter  at  first  sight.  Short 
cuts  to  knowledge  in  art  as  elsewhere  are  of  small 
worth.  Long  familiarity  with  pictures  is  necessary  to 
connoisseurship. 

It  requires  no  great  skill  or  knowledge  to  establish 
the  main  divisions  of  pictures.  Almost  any  one  stand- 
ing in  a  gallery  can  decide  the  nationality  of  a  picture 
at  a  glance  and  say  whether  it  is  Italian,  German, 
French,  Persian,  or  Chinese.  You  know  the  Italian 
from  the  German  in  pictures  precisely  as  you  know 
the  nationalities  in  life  on  the  street — that  is,  by  their 
peculiar  and  individual  appearances. 

The  subdivision  into  schools  requires  only  a  degree 
more  of  knowledge.  The  Italian  schools,  for  example, 
are  recognised  by  certain  broad  peculiarities  that  hold 
true  in  a  general  way  of  all  the  works  of  the  schools. 
The  Florentine  School  is  generally  known  by  its  pro- 
nounced drawing,  its  paucity  of  shadow,  its  rather  thin 
fields  of  colour;  the  Venetian  School  by  its  richness  and 
depth  of  colour,  its  florid  quality,  its  suffusion  of  line 


xxvi  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

with  colour  and  shadow;  the  Milanese  School  by  its 
light  and  shade,  its  contours,  its  rather  sooty  colour. 
So  on  with  the  other  schools,  each  one  of  which  has 
many  peculiarities  easily  seen  and  easily  recognised. 

When  one  comes  to  detect  the  individual  in  the  school 
— a  Titian,  a  Bonifazio,  an  Andrea  del  Sarto,  an  Am- 
brogio  da  Predis — the  difficulty  is  enormously  increased. 
Yet  the  simile  of  friends  and  familiar  acquaintance 
still  holds  good.  The  longer  and  deeper  your  acquain- 
tance with  Titian  the  more  sure  will  be  your  recognition 
or  non-recognition  of  him.  An  expert  standing  in  a 
strange  gallery  and  glancing  about  the  room  can  be 
reasonably  sure  that  this  picture  was  painted  by 
Titian,  that  one  by  Tintoretto,  the  third  one  by  Palma, 
the  fourth  one  by  Lotto.  Three  times  out  of  four, 
perhaps,  he  will  hit  very  near  the  bull's-eye.  Why  and 
how  does  he  do  this?  By  familiarity  with  the  work  of 
these  painters.  He  has  seen  them  do  the  same  sort 
of  thing,  in  the  same  way,  again  and  again,  until  he 
knows  what  is  Titianesque  or  Lottesque  just  as  he 
knows  what  is  Shakesperian  or  Homerian. 

The  Italian  School  is  peculiarly  Italian,  the  Venetian 
School  within  it  is  peculiarly  Venetian,  and  within  the 
Venetian  School  each  Bellini,  Giorgione,  or  Lotto  is 
peculiarly  himself.  We  recognise  each  one  of  the  in- 
dividual units  by  his  individuality.  The  simile  of  one's 
acquaintance  continues  to  hold  true.  Every  one  of 
your  friends  is  different  in  mental,  moral,  and  physical 
make-up  from  every  other  friend.  They  see,  think, 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxvii 

act  each  in  his  own  peculiar  way.  Just  so  with  the 
artist.  You  recognise  the  way  he  sees,  thinks,  feels, 
acts  in  the  picture  before  you.  You  recognise  him 
by  his  individual  appearance.  If  you  are  acquainted 
with  Beethoven  or  Swinburne  you  will  know  each 
one  directly  he  is  played  or  read.  Why  not  Titian 
or  Rubens  in  the  same  way? 

For  the  direct  consequence  of  individuality  in  the 
painter  is  that  he  not  only  thinks,  feels,  and  sees  in  a 
way  peculiarly  his  own,  but  that  he  expresses  his  vision, 
thought,  or  feeling  with  a  paint-brush  in  a  way  peculiarly 
his  own.  His  way  of  drawing,  of  handling,  of  compos- 
ing, of  selecting  lights,  shades,  colours,  gradually  be- 
comes fixed  and  established  with  him.  He  does  things 
in  one  way  because  he  thinks  that  the  best  way.  Pres- 
ently we  have  what  is  called  his  style.  There  are 
variations  in  this  style  from  first  to  last,  and  we  then 
have  what  is  called  an  artist's  first  or  "early"  manner, 
his  "late"  manner,  his  "florid"  manner,  his  "broad" 
manner,  and  so  on,  but  there  are  no  violent  changes. 
Generally  speaking,  he  paints  to  the  end  in  the  one 
recognisable  style,  subject  to  the  fluctuations  of  differ- 
ent periods  and  ages. 

How  does  one  recognise  the  style  of  each  painter? 
Precisely  as  you  recognise  the  different  handwritings 
of  your  intimate  friends.  No  two  of  the  handwritings 
are  alike;  they  are  individual  and  peculiar,  they  fluctu- 
ate at  different  ages  but  still  preserve  their  general 
style.  The  writers  could  change  their  writing  if  they 


xxviii  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

chose  but  they  do  not  think  it  worth  while.  Just  so 
with  the  painters.  Each  one  of  them  writes  with  a 
pencil  or  a  brush  in  his  peculiar  way.  Every  stroke 
is  more  or  less  of  a  signature.  If  you  are  familiar  with 
the  painter's  style  you  will  have  little  trouble  in  read- 
ing it  unless  it  has  been  rendered  illegible  by  cleaners 
and  restorers.  Of  that  something  will  be  said  further  on. 

By  their  style  you  shall  know  them.  Rubens  wrote 
with  a  brush  as  a  bookkeeper  with  a  pen — a  long, 
flowing,  limpid,  perfect  piece  of  handling;  Rembrandt 
wrote  as  with  a  stub  pen,  blotted  in  masses  of  shade, 
dragged  in  high  lights,  kneaded  and  thumbed  for 
modelling,  saturated  colours  with  shadow.  Nothing 
could  be  more  opposed  in  style  than  these  two  men. 
You  cannot  fail  to  recognise  their  differences.  Raph- 
ael wrote  with  a  superb  flowing  undulating  line,  now 
contracted,  now  swelling,  expressive  always,  beautiful 
everywhere.  It  was  classic  line.  Holbein's  line,  on 
the  contrary,  was  often  abrupt,  forceful,  full  of  realistic 
meaning  and  exact  statement  of  fact.  It  was  realistic 
or  naturalistic  line.  Again  you  cannot  fail  to  recognise 
the  difference.  Every  artist  of  importance  reveals  him- 
self in  his  work.  You  shall  know  him  by  his  style. 

And  sometimes  by  his  manner  or  mannerisms. 
Often  the  style  of  a  painter  drifts  into  a  set  expression 
and  becomes  mannered.  He  gets  into  the  habit  of 
repeating  himself  in  matters  of  detail.  Botticelli  fell 
into  the  habit  of  doing  one  jaw-line  for  all  his  women, 
one  crooked  forefinger  with  a  square,  black-edged  nail, 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxix 

one  second  toe  of  abnormal  length;  Van  Dyck  grew 
prosperous  and  at  the  same  time  mannered  enough  to 
do  practically  only  one  kind  of  a  hand;  Mantegna  did 
one  kind  of  an  ear,  Romanino  one  kind  of  eye,  Titian 
one  kind  of  thumb.  It  was  the  theory  of  Morelli  that 
these  mannerisms  of  painters  (I  have  mentioned  only 
half  a  dozen  out  of  hundreds)  could  be  made  the  basis 
of  a  science  whereby  the  attribution  of  pictures  would 
not  be  a  guess  or  questionable  but  an  established  fact. 
Perhaps  he  claimed  too  much,  but  there  is  certainly 
much  aid  in  attribution  to  be  derived  from  a  study  of 
painters'  mannerisms.  It  is  quite  necessary  that  the 
student  should  take  notice  of  them  and  get  what  aid 
he  can  from  them. 

He  should  also  get  what  aid  he  can  from  the  psy- 
chological and  mental  appeal  of  the  artist.  This  has 
been  rather  laid  aside  of  recent  years  in  determining 
the  paternity  of  a  picture  because  experts  think  it 
too  vague  and  metaphysical,  not  capable  of  sufficient 
proof.  They  have  also  virtually  laid  aside  history, 
tradition,  and  documentation  as  too  liable  to  error. 
In  fact,  the  modern  insistence  is  that  the  canvas  be 
studied  for  and  in  itself  for  what  it  discloses — no  more. 
The  insistence  upon  the  material  side  is  right  enough, 
but  the  student  should  not  wholly  abandon  the  mental 
attitude  of  the  painter.  It  is  often  a  great  help.  Nor 
should  documentation  and  history  be  cast  out.  They 
are  often  corroborative  in  the  evidence  they  furnish. 
The  picture  itself,  however,  is  the  last  and  final  re- 


xxx  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

sort.     We  must  believe  its  evidence  whether  it  pleases 
or  not. 

Again  let  it  be  said  that  there  is  no  rule  of  thumb, 
no  short  cut,  whereby  the  old  masters  can  be  run  to 
earth.  The  only  way  they  can  be  certainly  known  is 
by  long  study  and  familiarity  with  them — the  same 
familiarity  which  is  necessary  with  people,  with  hand- 
writings, with  field  flowers,  with  meadow  grasses. 
And  no  connoisseur  gets  to  a  point  in  his  knowledge 
where  he  is  infallible.  The  best  of  them  blunder  often 
and  are  not  ashamed  to  acknowledge  it. 

CLEANING,  RESTORING,  REPAINTING 

When  the  matter  of  who  painted  the  picture  is  de- 
cided upon  positively  or  negatively,  we  have  still  to 
reckon  with  how  much  or  how  little  of  the  painter  is 
left  in  the  picture.  Its  present  condition  must  be  in- 
quired into.  In  cataloguing  sculpture,  it  is  customary 
to  state  what  parts  are  restored,  as  an  arm  here,  a  leg 
there,  a  nose  or  piece  of  drapery  elsewhere;  but  it  is  not 
customary  to  state  what  restorations  have  been  made 
in  pictures.  The  student  will  find  very  few  of  the  gal- 
lery catalogues  mentioning  the  matter.  They  leave  one 
to  infer  that  this  picture  by  Titian,  or  that  by  Rubens 
is  just  as  the  master  left  it,  when  in  reality  it  may  be 
only  a  patched-up  ruin  with  not  the  slightest  brush- 
stroke of  the  master  left  in  it.  One  perhaps  goes  away 
blaming  the  master  as  a  bad  painter,  when  he  should 
blame  the  cleaning  room  and  the  restorer. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

Cleaning  and  restoration  are,  of  course,  more  or  less 
necessary.  A  canvas  after  it  has  hung  upon  a  wall  for 
a  hundred  years  becomes  grimed  with  dirt,  or  it 
"blooms,"  or  its  surface  darkens  with  varnish.  It  is 
taken  down  and  sent  to  the  cleaning  room  where  a 
cleaner  removes  the  varnish  by  rubbing.  He  may  clean 
and  rub  for  weeks,  with  thumb  or  balls  of  cotton,  until 
perhaps  he  flattens  down  and  rubs  away  the  finer  out- 
side skin  of  the  picture  or  destroys  the  more  delicate 
portions  of  the  modelling.  If  he  removes  the  varnish 
with  alcohol,  the  results  may  be  more  disastrous. 
The  alcohol,  if  not  checked  quickly,  may  eat  into  not 
only  the  varnish  but  the  paint  of  the  canvas  and 
obliterate  heads  or  legs  or  anything  with  which  it 
comes  in  contact.  This  careless  method  is  not  usually 
followed  to-day,  but  it  was  a  hundred  or  more  years 
ago;  and  much  injury  was  the  result.  For  in  the 
cleaning  room  the  obliterated  heads  and  legs  were 
usually  brought  into  existence  again,  repainted  by  a 
"restorer."  New  paint  cannot  be  made  to  match 
old  paint,  nor  bad  drawing  good  drawing,  and  a  per- 
manently injured  picture  was  usually  the  result  of 
such  practices.  Many  of  the  pictures  in  the  European 
galleries  have  suffered  badly  from  cleaning,  rubbing, 
scrubbing,  flaying  of  the  surfaces.  Many  of  the  love- 
liest surfaces  of  Titian,  of  Rubens,  of  Terborch,  and  of 
Vermeer  of  Delft  have  been  polished  bare  and  smooth 
after  many  years  of  cleaning  with  the  innocent-looking 
ball  of  cotton;  and  many  a  noble  Titian  or  Van  Dyck 


xxxii  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

has  been  absolutely  ruined  by  coarse  and  clumsy  re- 
painting. 

A  worse  fate  befalls  the  canvas  when,  after  hanging 
upon  the  wall  for  many  years,  it  begins  to  belly  and 
sag  in  the  middle.  Its  threads  break  and  tear  apart, 
and  its  pigments  crack  and  fall  off.  Then  it  has  to 
be  taken  down  and  relined.  The  surface  is  protected 
in  measure  by  temporary  pastings  of  fine  cloth  across 
the  face  of  it,  and  the  canvas  at  the  back  is  planed 
away  until  the  back  part  of  the  painting  appears. 
Then  a  new  canvas  is  fitted  down  upon  it  and  glued 
fast,  and  the  whole  is  placed  upon  a  new  stretcher. 
The  face  of  the  picture  has  suffered  in  this  process. 
The  paint  where  it  has  scaled  away  has  to  be  re- 
placed, and  once  more  the  new  paint  fails  to  match 
the  old  paint.  The  "restored"  canvas  is  the  result, 
and  the  work  is  injured  more  or  less  in  proportion  to 
its  scaling.  The  large  pictures  on  canvas  are  the  worst 
sufferers  by  this  process.  The  pictures  on  wood,  if  on 
a  large  scale,  also  crack  and  split,  but  they  suffer  less 
than  those  on  canvas;  and  some  of  the  pictures  on 
wood  or  copper,  especially  if  they  are  very  small,  do 
not  suffer  at  all.  Of  Titian's  works  on  canvas  there  are 
not  more  than  one  or  two  in  existence  that  are  as  he 
left  them.  About  the  only  thoroughly  clean  surface 
of  his  is  that  of  the  Tribute  Money  at  Dresden,  which 
is  painted  on  wood,  though  the  Paul  III  at  Naples  is 
in  good  condition.  This  is  equally  true  of  Rubens  or 
Van  Dyck.  Their  best-preserved  works  are  on  wood; 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

most  of  their  canvases  have  been  more  or  less  in- 
jured. 

The  picture  is  hopelessly  damaged  when  through  in- 
ability properly  to  clean  or  to  restore,  or  through  lazi- 
ness, or  for  the  purpose  of  covering  over  injuries  sus- 
tained in  the  cleaning  room,  the  whole  surface  of  the 
canvas  is,  not  retouched,  but  solidly  covered  with  pig- 
ment. That  puts  an  opaque  veil,  a  false  face  over  the 
picture,  and  it  is  ruined  save  for  the  design,  which  may 
still  show  the  master's  hand.  Many  pictures  in  the 
European  galleries  have  suffered  this  fate  and  are  still 
hanging  upon  the  walls  when  they  should  be  in  the  store- 
room. They  discredit  the  names  to  which  they  are  at- 
tached, they  deny  the  qualities  attributed  to  their  makers 
and,  of  course,  they  prove  confusing  to  the  art  student. 

It  is  proper  to  state  the  condition  of  a  gallery  pic- 
ture when  it  is  flagrantly  bad,  and  frequently  these 
notes  do  not  hesitate  to  point  out  the  condition  in  such 
a  way  that  the  student  may  see  for  himself  just  what 
the  injury  has  been.  But  it  is  also  proper  to  state 
that  the  present  gallery  directors  are  not  responsible 
for  the  bad  condition  of  the  pictures  now  in  their  care. 
Most  of  the  retouching  and  repainting  was  done  years 
ago  when  galleries  were  ill-kept  and  people  were  more 
indifferent  to  art  than  at  the  present  time.  Cleaning 
and  necessary  restoration  still  go  on,  else  we  should 
have  nothing  at  all  left  to  us,  but  the  work  is  now  very 
carefully  done.  Of  course  the  damage  of  the  past  can 
never  be  retrieved,  can  never  be  helped  in  any  way. 


xxxiv  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

Perhaps  it  should  be  said  that  comment  and  criticism 
in  these  notes  are  not  primarily  designed  to  exploit 
expertism  or  connoisseurship,  nor  to  point  out  defi- 
ciencies and  injuries  to  pictures;  but  to  indicate  what  is 
good  in  the  art  of  the  old  masters.  Again  and  again 
pictures  are  passed  by  without  inquiry  into  their  at- 
tribution because  it,  perhaps,  can  be  only  a  matter  of 
guessing,  and  the  gallery  director's  guess  may  be  as  near 
the  mark  as  any;  or  because,  for  other  reasons,  it  is  not 
necessary  or  expedient  to  take  up  the  matter.  Just  so 
with  much  slight  retouching  or  cleaning.  If  the  picture 
is  not  directly  misleading  in  its  attribution  or  positively 
hurt  by  repainting,  it  is  perhaps  not  worth  while  men- 
tioning one's  minor  observations. 

STANDARDS  OF  JUDGMENT 

When  we  have  measurably  eliminated  the  school 
piece,  the  copy,  the  forgery;  when  we  have  somehow 
attributed  each  picture  and  ascertained  its  present 
material  condition,  what  then?  Have  we  done  more 
than  clear  up  history  by  banishing  errors  and  false  state- 
ments? Are  we  not  still  confronted  in  the  galleries 
with  an  indiscriminate  collection  of  pictures,  each  gen- 
uine enough  perhaps,  but  each  of  a  different  artistic 
value?  All  the  authentic  pictures  by  Hals  or  Rubens 
or  Velasquez  are  far  from  being  of  uniform  excellence 
as  art.  The  king  nods  among  painters  as  among  poets. 
Even  Titian  occasionally  scores  low,  and  every  painter 
sometimes  gives  up  a  canvas  with  its  problem  unsolved. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxxv 

These  indifferent  pictures,  these  painter's  failures,  are 
often  taken  from  the  painter's  studio  after  his  death 
and  sold  for  what  they  will  bring.  Many  of  them  are 
now  in  public  galleries,  and  they  prove  somewhat  dis- 
concerting. Even  among  pictures  that  are  not  failures 
it  is  necessary  to  know  just  what  is,  or  is  not,  repre- 
sentative of  the  painter.  There  are,  for  instance,  in 
the  Berlin  Gallery,  five  Raphaels,  most  of  them  gen- 
uine enough,  in  good  condition  enough,  but  they  are 
early  works,  showing  his  pretty-faced  Madonnas  only. 
This  is  equally  true  of  the  Raphaels  in  the  National 
Gallery,  London;  and  those  in  the  Louvre  are  hardly 
more  representative.  It  is  proper  to  point  this  out 
and  to  insist  that  Raphael  cannot  be  adequately  seen 
outside  of  Florence  or  Rome;  that  Velasquez  must  be 
studied  at  Madrid,  as  Hals  at  Haarlem;  and  that 
single  examples  anywhere  may  be  representative  in 
kind  and  yet  still  give  an  inadequate  idea  of  the 
painter.  One  must  see  many  examples  of  a  master 
before  a  proper  idea  of  his  style  is  acquired. 

Again,  in  any  standards  of  judgment,  it  is  necessary 
to  have  a  sense  of  proportion,  a  relative  scale  of  value. 
It  cannot  be  said  that  Botticelli  and  Botticini,  or  Cor- 
reggio  and  Parmigianino,  or  Pieter  de  Hooch  and 
Janssens,  however  rightly  attributed  or  representative 
of  each  their  various  works  may  be,  are  of  the  same 
artistic  value.  Far  from  it.  They  are  widely  different. 
Wherein  lies  the  difference?  Chiefly  in  the  quality  of 
the  work.  That  word  quality  has  so  wide  a  meaning 


xxxvi  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

that  the  student  must  be  referred  to  its  discussion  in 
another  work;*  but  it  may  be  said  here  in  a  general  way 
that  the  difference  between  silk  and  gingham  is  a  differ- 
ence in  texture,  colour,  light,  and  surface,  a  difference 
in  quality  similar  to  that  between  the  pictures  of,  say, 
Rembrandt  and  William  de  Poorter.  The  word  may 
also  be  applied  to  the  mental  and  moral  as  well  as  the 
material  product.  The  thought  and  the  emotional 
feeling  of  Rembrandt  are  of  a  higher  and  more  universal 
quality  than  the  trifling  or  petty  attitude  of  mind  of 
Poorter,  just  as  his  drawing,  handling,  and  colouring 
are  of  a  broader  and  larger  calibre.  Quality  is  appar- 
ent in  the  thinking,  the  feeling,  and  the  technique,  all 
three,  but  we  shall  oftenest  detect  it  in  the  technique 
or  workmanship  of  the  picture.  If  that  is  of  a  poor 
quality,  if  the  drawing,  handling,  colouring,  lighting, 
are  indifferent  or  bad,  the  picture,  as  a  general  rule, 
will  not  survive.  Occasionally  its  thought  or  theme 
may  save  it,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  but  usually  bad 
grammar  in  any  art  is  fatal. 

We  shall  not  go  far  astray  if  in  our  standards  we 
adopt  the  painters'  point  of  view,  and  look  at  every 
canvas  first  for  its  workmanship.  Is  it  well  made? 
Is  it  composed,  drawn,  lighted,  painted  in  a  workman- 
like and  artistic  way?  What  is  the  total  result — the 
final  appearance?  Is  it  a  thing  of  beauty,  a  pattern  of 
fine  form  and  colour,  something  charming  to  look  at, 

*Van  Dyke,  "What  is  Art?"  chap.  4. 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxxvii 

something  decorative,  sensuously  lovely,  gorgeously 
rich  or  perhaps  commandingly  magnificent  ?  If  so, 
it  has  fulfilled  the  primary  aim  of  the  painter,  and  pos- 
sesses quality.  There  are  other  aims  of  painting 
which  we  shall  come  to  in  a  moment,  but  the  first  aim 
is,  or  should  be,  good  painting,  good  technique,  good 
decoration.  This,  as  we  have  suggested,  is  the  painter's 
primary  aim  and  should  never  be  lost  sight  of  for  a 
moment.  Ninety  canvases  out  of  a  hundred  stand  or 
fall  by  it  alone.  The  old  masters  never  neglected  it. 
For  be  it  remembered  always  that  they  were  famous 
not  because  they  were  "old"  but  because  they  were 
"  masters  " — masters  of  craftsmanship. 

REPRESENTATION,  TRUTH,  REALISM 

But  perhaps  very  few  among  the  gallery  public  think 
of  the  workmanship  or  decorative  quality  of  a  picture. 
They  have  a  different  point  of  view,  and  are  looking 
for  pretty  faces,  interesting  stories,  or  objects  in  the 
picture  that  look  so  real  one  could  pick  them  up.  And 
true  enough  those  features  have  been  dwelt  upon  by 
some  painters — old  masters  as  well  as  new— and  realism 
has  been  an  aim  more  or  less  of  even  the  best  of  painters. 
Art  as  a  representation  of  reality  cannot  be  ignored. 
It  has  produced  powerful  and  virile  pictures  at  all  times 
and  in  all  schools. 

Truth  to  nature,  realism,  representation  of  reality,  in 
art  is  usually  of  two  kinds.  There  are  first  the  small 
men  of  the  brush  like  Gerard  Dou  or  Netscher  or  Van 


xxxviii         GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

der  Werff,  who  see  and  paint  the  petty  truths  of  life 
to  be  found  on  the  surface,  such  as  fur,  hair,  a  three 
days'  old  beard,  wrinkles,  shimmers,  gleams,  spots.  In 
doing  so  they  usually  lose  the  larger  truths  of  body, 
weight,  space,  light,  air,  unity,  envelope.  They  pro- 
duce a  superficial  picture  of  pretty  surfaces  and  over- 
look the  bulk  back  of  the  surface,  what  it  stands  for  as 
substance,  what  it  looks  as  line,  light,  and  colour,  what 
it  signifies  or  symbolises  as  thought.  But  it  should 
be  pointed  out  that  there  are  men  quite  different  from 
the  Dous,  who  give  the  substance  as  well  as  the  sur- 
face of  things — men  like  the  Van  Eycks,  Memling, 
Bouts,  Terborch,  and  others.  They  are  exceptional 
men,  and  just  how  they  manage  to  combine  a  minia- 
ture finish  with  a  large  sense  of  form  and  perfect 
ensemble  has  always  been  a  matter  of  wonder.  The 
Arnolfini  portrait  by  Jan  van  Eyck  or  the  Bouts 
Deposition  hanging  near  it  in  the  National  Gallery, 
London,  are  illustrations  of  detail  carried  to  its  last 
stage  of  finish,  but  without  losing  bulk,  unity,  and 
ensemble.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  same  room  with 
these,  is  the  large  recently  acquired  Adoration  of  the 
Kings,  by  Gossart,  which  is  a  marvel  of  minute  tech- 
nique, of  goldsmith-miniature  work.  It  is  precise 
about  every  detail,  the  objects  all  look  as  though  they 
could  be  picked  up,  the  illusion  is  quite  perfect;  but 
if  you  stand  back  and  look  at  the  picture  from  a  dis- 
tance, you  will  see  that  it  has  little  air,  that  its  colours 
fail  to  blend  into  colour,  that  its  objects  are  wanting 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xxxix 

in  unity  under  one  light,  in  one  scene,  with  one  atmos- 
pheric envelope. 

The  work  of  these  minute  painters,  however  wonder- 
ful it  may  appear,  is  hardly  painting  in  a  modern  sense. 
The  small  detail  rather  argues  the  small  point  of  view. 
Men  of  large  comprehension  like  Titian,  Rubens,  Rem- 
brandt, Hals,  Velasquez,  saw  things  in  a  more  compre- 
hensive way  and  painted  them  in  a  fuller,  freer  manner, 
ignoring  the  incidental  and  the  local  for  the  broader  and 
more  universal  truths  of  life.  Hals  was  not  so  much 
concerned  with  the  epidermis  of  the  man  he  was  paint- 
ing as  with  his  bulk  and  weight.  Velasquez  bothered 
himself  little  with  buttons  and  strings  and  cocked  hats 
so  long  as  his  figures  had  bone  structure,  stood  well, 
and  were  enveloped  with  air  and  light.  Titian  sim- 
plified the  whole  surface  of  his  canvas  that  he  might 
the  better  show  the  type,  the  character,  the  nobility 
of  the  man  whose  portrait  he  was  painting.  And 
Rembrandt,  giving  perhaps  the  most  positive  truths 
of  form  imaginable  in  art,  was  nevertheless  subordinat- 
ing them  always  to  those  large  truths  of  thought  and 
feeling  common  to  all  humanity. 

ART  AS  AN  EXPRESSION  OF  LIFE 

Yes,  art  may  be  expressive  of  more  than  decoration 
and  workmanship,  of  more  than  truth  of  fact  whether 
great  or  small.  It  may  be  art  and  valuable  by  virtue 
of  the  thought  or  idea  set  forth  in  symbolic  form  and 
colour.  Pisanello  or  Mantegna  in  their  fine  portrait 


xl  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

heads  must  have  believed  that  form  and  colour  were 
merely  a  means  of  expressing  the  dignity  and  nobility 
of  their  sitters,  and  Michelangelo,  for  all  his  majestic 
command  of  line,  was  symbolising  austerity,  mystery, 
power  in  his  great  figures  of  the  Prophets  and  Sibyls 
on  the  Sistine  ceiling.  Titian,  Tintoretto,  Paolo  Vero- 
nese, even  Giorgione  with  his  pastoral  scenes,  were 
expressing  their  different  conceptions  of  life.  At  the 
North  a  refined  soul  like  Vermeer  of  Delft  and  a  coarse 
spirit  like  Steen  were  thinkers  as  well  as  painters,  people 
who  were,  each  after  his  kind,  giving  their  views  of 
existence  here  below.  Dttrer  again  had  one  view,  and 
Cranach  another  and  Holbein  still  a  third.  Every  one 
of  their  pictures  expresses  the  man's  mind,  as  well  as  his 
skilful  fingers  and  his  eye  for  form  and  colour.  Art 
may  be  and  is  valuable  for  its  ideas — for  its  criticism 
of  life. 

ART  AS  SENTIMENT  OR  FEELING 

Often  in  art  a  view  of  life  is  emphasised,  exaggerated, 
even  warped,  and  becomes  uniquely  valuable  because  of 
its  personal  element,  its  individuality.  A  state  of  mind 
or  of  emotional  feeling  is  apparent  in  the  product. 
This  may  become  a  mannerism  with  the  painter  and 
sometimes  make  the  picture  abnormal  or  possibly  dis- 
agreeable; but  with  the  great  men  it  may  prove  at- 
tractive. Botticelli,  for  instance,  has  a  personality 
that  is  mystical,  sad,  yearning,  pathetic,  but  it  helps 
rather  than  hurts  his  pictures.  Without  it  his  pictures 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xli 

would  be  well  drawn  and  painted,  and  they  would  be 
decorative  as  patterns  of  line  and  colour;  but  they 
would  lack  poetry.  This  is  equally  true  of  the  portraits 
by  Lotto.  The  poetic  nature  of  the  man  gives  a  cer- 
tain tang  to  the  portraits  that  makes  them  intensely 
human,  refined,  sensitive,  distinguished,  noble.  And 
what  great  value  as  art  would  Rembrandt's  Supper  at 
Emmaus  possess  if  its  emotional  element  were  ban- 
ished? This  emotional  element  in  art  is  apparent  in 
all  the  religious  painting  of  the  Renaissance  time.  It 
is  called  "feeling,"  and  is  merely  the  expression  of  the 
painter's  emotional  attitude  toward  his  subject.  We 
see  it  in  Giotto,  in  Fra  Angelico,  in  Filippino,  in  Peru- 
gino,  in  Francia,  in  Bellini — in  all  of  the  earlier  men. 
Far  along  in  the  Renaissance  with  Fra  Bartolommeo, 
Raphael,  Leonardo,  and  even  Titian  and  the  late  Vene- 
tians, there  is  a  continuance  of  it.  The  wonderful 
pathos  of  Memling,  the  tragic  quality  of  Van  der 
Weyden  and  Bouts,  the  grim  horrors  of  Burgkmair, 
the  splendid  agonies  of  Rubens  are  all,  more  or  less, 
expressions  of  the  personal  element  in  art. 

CHURCH  ART  OF  THE  RENAISSANCE 

And  still  again,  art  may  be  illustrative  and  measur- 
ably valuable  for  what  it  teaches.  All  the  church  art 
of  the  Renaissance  was  of  this  character,  though  it  also 
had  its  commanding  decorative  motive  as  well.  It  was 
an  engine  of  the  church  and  taught  Bible-truths  to 
those  who  could  not  read.  We  of  an  alien  race  and 


xlii  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

creed  and  of  a  modern  time  are  not  in  sympathy  with 
this  phase  of  art,  and  frequently  we  hear  people  decry- 
ing the  old  masters  for  their  numerous  Madonnas,  St. 
Sebastians,  and  Crucifixions.  We  have  not  the  proper 
angle  of  vision;  we  are  out  of  focus.  If  we  knew  the 
purpose  in  worship  and  the  place  in  the  Church  of  San 
Sisto  at  Piacenza  for  which  Raphael's  Sistine  Madonna 
was  originally  painted,  we  should  not  blindly  wonder 
over  its  great  reputation  as  we  see  it  to-day  in  the 
Dresden  Gallery.  It  was  a  masterful  illustration  of  the 
Christ  Child  as  the  Light  and  Hope  of  the  World.  It 
was  painted  for  those  in  the  past  who  believed,  not  for 
those  of  to-day  who  doubt.  Just  so  with  the  frescoes 
in  the  Arena  Chapel  at  Padua,  where  Giotto  told  the 
story  of  the  life  of  Christ,  or  the  Riccardi  Chapel  at 
Florence,  where  Benozzo  painted  the  gorgeous  Proces- 
sion of  the  Kings.  They  were  done  to  illustrate  the 
truths  of  Christianity.  That  we  are  not  able  to  enter 
as  fully  into  their  meaning  as  those  for  whom  they 
were  painted  is  our  limitation.  But  we  should  not 
overlook  the  fact  that  their  religious  motive  was  right 
and  true,  and  quite  as  proper  for  expression  in  art  as 
was  their  decorative  form  and  colour,  which  we  perhaps 
understand  better. 

One  might  say  as  much  for  the  art  which  illustrates 
mythology  or  history  were  it  imbued  with  the  same  in- 
tensity of  feeling  as  the  religious  art.  Occasionally, 
with  men  like  Giorgione  or  Correggio,  there  is  a  fine 
idyllic  quality  expressed  in  mythological  scenes;  but 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xliii 

more  often  the  mythological  theme  is  but  an  excuse  for 
painting  something  beautiful  in  form  and  colour — the 
decorative  motive  again.  With  history  for  a  theme, 
the  interest  of  the  picture  is  often  divided  between  the 
incident  or  event  portrayed  and  the  manner  of  its  por- 
trayal. Such  work  is  not  purely  creative,  something 
standing  by  itself  and  by  its  beauty  appealing  merely 
to  the  sense  of  sight;  it  leans  more  or  less  on  literature 
or  tradition.  That  is  perhaps  why  it  is  regarded  as 
illustrative  or  dependent  art. 

To  sum  up,  then,  painting  is  to  be  considered  for  its 
various  motives  in  various  ways,  and  our  standards  of 
judgment  are  not  to  be  arbitrary  and  inflexible.  We 
shall  test  the  picture  oftenest  by  its  workmanship  and 
by  its  appearance  as  decorative  form  and  colour,  be- 
cause decoration  is,  or  should  be,  the  primary  and  the 
lasting  motive  of  all  art,  but  we  are  not  to  forget  that 
it  may  also  be  expressive  of  reality,  of  life,  of  thought, 
of  personal  feeling,  of  mythological  story,  of  history, 
of  religious  faith,  of  common  everyday  life,  and  be 
valuable  for  each  and  every  one  of  them  in  proportion 
to  the  truth  and  intensity  with  which  the  point  of  view 
is  maintained. 

PICTURES  ON  GALLERY  WALLS 

Finally,  a  word  of  explanation  may  be  offered  about 
the  places  in  which  most  of  the  old  masters  now  find 
themselves.  The  greater  number  of  the  so-called  gal- 
leries and  museums  of  Europe  were  not  designed  as 


xliv  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

places  in  which  to  preserve  and  exhibit  pictures.  They 
are  old  palaces  or  obsolete  public  buildings  that  have 
been  turned  into  galleries  because  there  were  no  other 
buildings  available.  Of  course,  very  few  of  the  old 
pictures  were  painted  for  the  places  in  which  they  now 
hang.  The  great  majority  of  them  were  church  pic- 
tures— ancone,  altar-pieces,  triptychs,  tabernacles,  lu- 
nettes, wall  frescoes.  Each  was  painted  for  a  certain 
space,  to  be  seen  at  a  certain  distance,  and  under  a  cer- 
tain light.  All  the  conditions,  uses  and  purposes  for 
which  they  were  painted  have  now  been  nullified  by 
taking  them  from  their  original  setting  and  putting  them 
in  galleries.  A  Crucifixion  by  Fra  Angelico,  painted  in 
and  for  San  Marco,  painted  to  be  prayed  before,  ap- 
pears somewhat  ridiculous  upon  the  landing  of  a  stair- 
case in  the  Louvre,  where  it  is  stared  at  by  an  irrev- 
erent, unthinking  party  of  tourists.  Again,  a  Rubens 
Assumption  of  the  Virgin,  painted  for  a  Jesuit  Church 
in  Antwerp,  to  be  seen  under  a  certain  light,  at  a  great 
distance,  and  therefore  painted  with  colossal  figures, 
looks  absurd  when  placed  in  a  small  corridor  under  a 
glaring  light  that  exaggerates  its  colouring  and  banishes 
all  mystery  from  its  figures  and  its  shadows.  How  often 
one  hears  criticism  of  the  "gross  and  fleshly  forms"  of 
Rubens  coming  from  those  who  have  not  imagination 
enough  to  know  that  the  picture  they  are  condemning 
was  not  painted  for  exhibition  at  close  range  in  a  gal- 
lery. It  is  just  so  with  Titian  or  Raphael.  The  col- 
ouring of  the  Sistine  Madonna  looks  crude  and  raw 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xlv 

under  the  fierce  light  that  beats  upon  it  in  the  Dresden 
Gallery,  but  the  copy  of  it  in  the  Church  of  San  Sisto, 
for  which  the  original  was  painted,  looks  quite  right. 
The  huge  canvases  of  Paolo  Veronese  that  graced  the 
gilded  ceilings  of  the  Ducal  Palace  and  were  painted  with 
the  greatest  brilliancy  of  colour  that  they  might  live  up 
to  their  gorgeous  setting,  what  do  they  look  like  when 
hung  on  the  flat  wall  of  a  gallery  with  their  perspective 
falsified  and  their  colour  distorted  for  want  of  proper 
surroundings? 

Of  course  the  portraits  and  small  genre  pieces  suffer 
less  than  the  large  altar-pieces,  but  even  they  were 
painted  for  a  different  age,  different  houses,  different 
environments  from  those  that  they  at  present  know. 
When  there  is  an  attempt  made  to  reconstruct  their  en- 
vironments, as  in  the  rooms  of  the  Kaiser-Friedrich 
Museum  at  Berlin,  or  the  new  Hals  Museum  at  Haar- 
lem, we  instantly  see  and  feel  the  improvement.  The 
average  gallery  distorts  them,  hurts  them,  almost  ruins 
them. 

Almost  always,  too,  the  original  framing  of  the  old 
masterpiece  is  absent,  and  another  and  a  very  different 
framing  is  substituted.  The  old  pictures  are  frequently 
seen  in  new  settings  that  glitter  with  the  brightest  gold 
of  the  gilder.  This  deadens  the  picture,  puts  it  out  of 
key,  or  makes  it  look  raw  and  inharmonious.  Then, 
too,  for  purposes  of  cleanliness,  the  picture  is  often 
covered  with  a  glass  in  which  you  are  continually 
seeing  false  reflections,  strange  lights,  and  misleading 
shadows.  And  finally  the  pictures  are  all  hung  to- 


xlvi  GENERAL  INTRODUCTION 

gether  on  a  line,  like  onions  on  a  string,  and  hurt  one 
another  by  their  different  schemes  of  light  and  colour. 
Every  modern  painter  knows  how  his  picture,  that 
looked  so  well  in  his  studio,  may  "go  to  pieces"  on  an 
exhibition  wall  because  of  its  being  brought  into  con- 
tact with  some  brilliant  neighbouring  picture.  The 
huge  Salon  picture  came  into  existence  from  the  neces- 
sity for  something  that  by  sheer  size,  bright  colour,  and 
brutal  handling  should  out-shriek  its  surroundings. 
The  old  pictures  suffer  from  contact  with  each  other 
in  the  same  way.  They  jostle  and  elbow  and  berate 
each  other  on  the  wall  to  their  infinite  harm. 

OLD  MASTERS  MISUNDERSTOOD 

In  fact,  many  things  combine  to  put  the  old  masters 
out  of  countenance  and  make  them  misunderstood  by 
the  people  of  to-day.  They  are  taken  from  their 
homes  and  carried  into  strange  lands;  they  are  hung 
in  strange  frames  under  false  lights,  in  cramped  quar- 
ters, with  strange  company  for  neighbours,  and  un- 
believing hosts  for  admirers.  They  speak  a  foreign 
language  about  themes  and  thoughts  that  are  past, 
they  whisper  of  a  people  long  dead,  and  of  a  faith  that 
has  waned  to  a  shadow.  How  far  removed  from  them 
we  are  in  our  sympathies!  Why  do  we  bother  about 
them?  Why  do  we  look  at  them?  What  is  there  about 
them  that  should  send  crowds  in  thousands  through  the 
European  galleries?  Is  the  admiration  ill-bestowed, 
and  are  the  old  masters  only  a  fad  of  the  day? 

Ah,   no!    The   Titians  and  the  Rembrandts  have 


GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  xlvii 

gone  and  many  of  those  they  painted  have  not  left 
us  their  local  habitation  or  name.  In  the  gallery  they 
have  a  number,  and  a  title  such  as  "Portrait  of  an 
Unknown  Man,"  or  "Portrait  of  an  Unknown  Lady" — 
no  more.  But  the  pictures  still  have  in  them  and  about 
them  the  living  style  of  Titian,  the  undying  manner  of 
Rembrandt.  Therein  lies  their  primary  value.  Their 
style,  their  manner,  their  workmanship  is  alive  to-day, 
and  is  as  unequalled  in  modern  times  as  the  style  of 
Homer,  of  Dante,  of  Shakspeare.  They,  too,  the  old 
writers,  have  subjects  and  ideas  belonging  to  a  for- 
gotten age,  moribund  to  us;  but  they,  too,  with  the 
Raphaels,  the  Titians,  the  Holbeins,  have  a  manner 
and  a  method  that  are  criterions  for  all  time  and  for 
all  people. 

It  is  this  method,  this  style  in  the  old  masters,  that 
keeps  their  pictures  virile  to  this  day,  that  makes  them 
worthy  of  study.  Their  great  decorative  quality  is 
but  the  natural  sequence  of  their  masterful  style.  And 
that  is  why  (to  return  to  our  original  contention),  we 
shall  herein  talk  much  of  decorative  form  and  colour, 
handling,  method,  manner,  style — things  seen,  and  still 
vital — and  little  about  saints  or  sitters  or  faiths  or 
histories — things  past  and  belonging  to  a  vanished  age. 
We  may  harp  on  the  decorative  key  until  its  note  be- 
comes wearisome,  but  it  is  about  the  only  note  in  the 
scale  which  sounds  clear  and  true  to-day,  about  the 
only  note  that  we  can  sympathetically  understand. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS 

This  is  a  limited  list  of  the  accessible  books.  The 
titles  are  usually  abbreviated  but  are  sufficient  for 
recognition.  Any  librarian  or  bookseller  can  supply 
full  information  about  them  on  demand.  It  is  de- 
sirable that  the  last  edition  be  always  demanded. 
For  that  reason  and  to  avoid  confusion  the  dates 
herein  are  frequently  omitted. 

DICTIONARIES 

BRYAN,  Dictionary  of  Painters  and  Engravers  (Williamson 

edition).    London. 
CHAMPLIN  AND  PERKINS,  Cyclopedia  of  Painters  and  Paintings. 

New  York,  1887. 

Encyclopedia  Britannica  (llth  edition).    London,  1910. 
LAROUSSE,  Grand  Dictionnaire  Universel.    Paris. 
MEYER,  Allgemeines  Kiinstler-Lexikon.    Leipzig,  1872-1885. 
MEYER,  Konversations-Lexikon.    Leipzig. 
THIEME   UNO   BECKER,  Allgemeines  Lexikon  der  bUdenden 

Kunstler.    Leipzig,  1908. 
WURZBACH,  Niederlandisches  Kunstler-Lexikon.    Wien,  1910. 

CATALOGUES 

Beschreibendes  Verzeichnis  der  Gemdlde  im  Kaiser-Friedrich 

Museum.    Berlin,  1913.     (Unabridged.) 
Catalogue  of  National  Gallery,  London.     (Unabridged,  1913.) 
Catalogue  of  the  Wallace  Collection.    London,  1913. 

li 


iii  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS 

Catalogue   historique  et  descriptif  des    Tableaux  anciens  du 

Musee  de  Bruxelles,  par  A.  J.  Wauters.    Brussels,  1906. 
Catalogo  delta  R.   Pinacoteca  di  Brera  con  cenno  storico  di 

Corrado  Ricci.    Bergamo,  1908. 
FRIZZONI,   Le  Gallerie  dell'  Accademia  Carrara  in  Bergamo. 

Bergamo,  1907. 
Guida  del  Museo  Nazionale  di  Napoli.     Catalogo  di  Aldo  de 

Rinaldis.    Napoli,  1911. 

All  of  these  catalogues  may  be  consulted  for  their  bio- 
graphical and  critical  notes  regarding  the  different  painters. 

PERIODICALS 

American  Journal  of  Archceology. 

Burlington  Magazine.    London. 

Gazette  des  Beaux-Arts.     Paris. 

Jahrbuch  der  Konigl.  Preuss.  Kunstsammlungen.    Berlin. 

Rassegna  d'Arte.    Milan. 

ILLUSTRATIONS  IN  BOOK  FORM 

Art  Galleries  of  Europe  (Newnes  Publication).    London. 

Classics  in  Art,  Brentano,  1914. 

DIEDERICH,  Die  Kunst  in  Bildern.    Jena,  1909. 

GOWAN'S  Art  Books.    London,  1909. 

HANFSTAENGL,  National  Gallery,  London;  Old  Pinacothek, 
Munich;  Hermitage,  St.  Petersburg;  Berlin,  Dresden, 
Cassel,  Amsterdam,  Hague,  Haarlem  galleries. 

KNACKFUSS,  Kiinstler-Monographien.    Bielefeld,  1900. 

Masterpieces  of  Painting.    Stokes,  New  York. 

RICCI,  Raccolte  d'Arte;  Collezione  di  Monografie  illustrate. 
Bergamo,  1908. 

TECHNIQUE  OF  PAINTING 

CENNINI,  Treatise  on  Painting  (last  edition). 
EASTLAKE,  Materials  for  the  History  of  OH  Painting.    London, 
1869. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS         liii 

KIESLING,  Wesen  und  Technik  der  Malerei.    Leipzig,  1908. 
LEONARDO  DA  VINCI,  Treatise  on  Painting.    London. 
MOREAU-VAUTHIER,  Technique  of  Painting.    New  York,  1912. 
SCHULTZE-NAUMBURG,  Die    Technik   der   Malerei.    Leipzig, 

1908. 

VAN  DYKE,  Art  for  Art's  Sake.    New  York,  1904. 
VIBERT,  La  Science  de  la  Peinture.    Paris. 

GENERAL  HISTORIES 

BAYET,  Precis  d'Histoire  de  I' Art.    Paris,  1908. 

KUGLER,  Handbook  of  Painting.    Italian  School.    Ed.  Layard, 

New  York. 
KUGLER,  Handbook  of  Painting.     German,   Flemish,   Dutch 

Schools.    Ed.  Crowe,  New  York. 
LUBKE,  History  of  Art  (Russell  Sturgis  edition).    New  York, 

1904. 

MICHEL,  Histoire  de  I' Art.    Paris,  1895. 
MOTHER,  History  of  Painting.    New  York,  1907. 
REINACH,  Apollo.    New  York,  1907. 
SPRINGER,  Handbuch  der  Kunstgeschichte.    Leipzig,  1909. 
VAN  DYKE,  History  of  Painting.    New  York,  1912. 
WOERMANN,  Geschichte  der  Kunst.    Leipzig,  1904. 
WOLTMANN  AND  WOERMANN,  History  of  Painting.    New  York, 
1885. 

ITALIAN  PAINTING 

BERENSON,  Lorenzo  Lotto.    London,  1905. 

BERENSON,  Venetian  Painters  of  the  Renaissance.    New  York. 

(Last  edition.) 
BERENSON,  Florentine  Painters  of  the  Renaissance.    New  York. 

(Last  edition.) 
BERENSON,  Central  Italian  Painters  of  the  Renaissance.    New 

York.     (Last  edition.) 
BERENSON,  North  Italian  Painters  of  the  Renaissance.    New 

York.     (Last  edition.) 


liv          BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS 

BERENSON,  Drawings   of  the  Florentine   Painters.   London. 

(Expensive.) 

BERENSON,  Study  and  Criticism  of  Italian  Art.    London,  1901. 
BOSCHINI,  Le  ricche  minere  della  pittura  Veneziana.    Venice, 

1674. 

BURCKHARDT,  Der  Cicerone  (Bode's  edition).    Leipzig,  1901. 
COOK,  Giorgione.    London,  1900. 
Cox,  Old  Masters  and  New  (Chapter  on  Veronese) .   New  York, 

1905. 
CROWE  AND  CAVALCASELLE,  History  of  Painting  in  North  Italy 

(edited  by  Borenius).     London,  1912. 
CROWE  AND  CAVALCASELLE,  History  of  Painting  in  Italy 

(edited  by  Douglas).     London,  1903-11. 
CROWE  AND  CAVALCASELLE,  Raphael.    London,  1882-1885. 
CROWE  AND  CAVALCASELLE,  Titian.    London,  1881. 
CRUTTWELL,  Antonio  Pollaiuolo.    London,  1907. 
CRUTTWELL,  Verrocchio.    London,  1904. 
CUST,  Giovanni  Antonio  Bazzi.    London,  1906. 
DALTON,  Byzantine  Art  and  Archaeology.    London,  1913. 
DA  VIES,  Michelangelo.    London,  1909. 
DAVIES,  Ghirlandajo.    London,  1909. 
DOUGLAS,  Fra  Angelico.    London. 

FFOULKES  AND  MAIOCCHI,  Vincenzo  Foppa  of  Brescia.    Lon- 
don, 1909. 

FRIZZONI,  Arte  Italiana  del  Rinascimento.    Milan,  1891. 
FRY,  Giovanni  Bellini.    London,  1899. 
GARDNER,  Ferrarese  School  of  Painting.    London,  1911. 
GAUTHIEZ,  Luini  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
GOFFIN,  Pinturricchio  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
GRIMM,  Michael  Angelo.    Boston,  1877. 
GRONAU,  Titian.    London,  1904. 
GRONAU,  Correggio.    Stuttgart,  1907. 
GRONAU,  I  Bellini.    Leipzig,  1909. 
GRONAU,  Die  Quellen  der  Biographie  des  Antonello  da  Messina. 

Berlin,  1897. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS  Iv 

GRONAU,  Leonardo  da  Vinci.    London,  1902. 

HALSEY,  Gaudenzio  Ferrari.    London,  1904. 

HAMEL,  Titian  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 

HILL,  Pisanello.    London,  1905. 

HOLROYD,  Michael  Angela.    London,  1903. 

HORNE,  Botticelli  (expensive).    London,  1911. 

HORNE  AND  CUST,  Leonardo  da  Vinci.    London,  1908. 

JUSTI,  Giorgione.    Berlin,  1908. 

LANZI,  History  of  Painting  in  Italy.    London,  1852. 

LETHABY,  Medieval  Art.    London,  1904. 

LINDSAY,  History  of  Christian  Art.    London,  1847. 

MALVASIA,  Felsina  Pittrice.    Bologna,  1678. 

MEYER,  Correggio.    Leipzig,  1871. 

MOLMENTI,  La  Pittura  Veneziana.    Florence,  1903. 

MOLMENTI,  //  Carpaccio  e  il  Tiepolo.    Turin,  1886. 

MOLMENTI,  G.  B.  Tiepolo.    Milan,  1907. 

MOORE,  Correggio.    London,  1906. 

MORELLI,  Italian  Masters  in  German  Galleries.    London,  1883. 

MORELLI,  Italian  Painters.    London,  1892. 

MUNDLER,  Tableaux  Italiens  du  Musee  National  du  Louvre. 

Paris,  1850. 

MUNTZ,  L'Art  de  la  Renaissance.    Paris,  1896. 
MUNTZ,  Raphael  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
MUNTZ,  Leonardo  da  Vinci.    London,  1899. 
OPPE,  Raphael.    London,  1909. 
PASSAVANT,  Raphael  of  Urbino  and  His  Father.    New  York, 

1888. 

PHILLIPS,  Titian.    New  York,  1898. 
PHILLIPPS,  Tintoretto.    London,  1911. 
REYMOND,  Michel- Ange  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
RICCI,  Art  in  Northern  Italy.    (Ars  Una  Series).    New  York, 

1911. 

RICCI,  Correggio.  New  York,  1896. 
RICCI,  Pintoricchio.  London,  1904. 
RICHTER,  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  London,  1880. 


Ivi          BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS 

RICHTER,  Italian  Art  in  the  National  Gallery.    London,  1883. 

RICKETTS,  Titian.    London,  1910. 

RIDOLFI,  Le  Maraviglie  dell'  Arte.    Padova,  1835. 

ROSENBERG,  Leonardo  da  Vinci.    Leipzig,  1898. 

ROSINI,  Storia  della  pittura  Italiana.    Pisa,  1841. 

RUSHFORTH,  Crivelli.    London,  1904. 

SCHUBRING,  Altichiero  und  seine  Schule.    Leipzig,  1898. 

SELINCOURT,  Giotto.    London,  1905. 

SPRINGER,  Rafael  und  Michelangelo.    Leipzig,  1878. 

SPRINGER-RICCI,  Manuak  di  Storia  dell'  Arte.  Bergamo, 
1910-13. 

STILLMAN,  Old  Italian  Masters  (Cole's  Engravings).  New 
York,  1892. 

SYMONDS,  Michael  Angela.    London,  1893. 

SYMONDS,  The  Renaissance,  The  Fine  Arts.    New  York,  1879. 

TESTI,  La  Storia  della  Pittura  Veneziana.    Bergamo,  1909. 

VASARI,  Lives  of  the  Most  Eminent  Painters,  etc.  (Forster's  edi- 
tion). London. 

VENTURI,  Storia  dell'  Arte  Italiana.    Milan,  1901-08. 

VENTURI  (L.),  Giorgione  e  il  Giorgionismo.    Milan,  1913. 

VENTURI  (L.),  Le  Origine  della  Pittura  Veneziana.  Venice, 
1907. 

WILLIAMSON,  Francesco  Raibolini  called  Francia.  London, 
1901. 

WILLIAMSON  (Editor),  The  Anonimo.    London,  1903. 

WILLIAMSON,  Luini.    London,  1899. 

WOLFFUN,  Art  of  the  Italian  Renaissance.    New  York,  1903. 

ZANOTTO,  Pinacoteca  dell'  Accademia  Veneta  dette  Belle  Arti. 
Venice,  1834. 

DUTCH  AND  FLEMISH  PAINTING 

BERNARD,  Pierre  Brueghel.    Bruxelles,  1912. 
BODE,  Frans  Hals  und  seine  Schule. 
BODE,  Adriaan  van  Ostade. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS         Ivii 

BODE,  Great  Masters  of  Dutch  and  Flemish  Painting.  Lon- 
don, 1909. 

BODE  UND  HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  Rembrandt.  Paris,  1897-1906. 

BOSSCHERE,  Quentin  Metsys.    Bruxelles,  1912. 

BREDIUS,  Les  Chefs-d'CEuvres  du  Musee  Royal  Amsterdam. 
Paris,  1900. 

BURGER,  Musees  de  la  Hollande.    Paris,  1858. 

BUSCHMANN,  Jacques  Jordaens.    Bruxelles,  1905. 

CROWE  AND  CAVALCASELLE,  Early  Flemish  Painters.  Lon- 
don, 1872. 

GUST,  Van  Dyck.    London,  1906. 

DILLON,  Rubens  (many  illustrations).    London,  1909. 

DURAND-GREVILLE,  Hubert  et  Jean  van  Eyck.    Bruxelles. 

FIERENS-GEVAERT,  La  Peinture  au  Musee  Ancien  de  Bruxel- 
les. Bruxelles,  1913. 

FIERENS-GEVAERT,  Jordaens  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 

FIERENS-GEVAERT,  Van  Dyck  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 

FIERENS-GEVAERT,  Les  Primitifs  Flamands.  Bruxelles,  1910- 
1912. 

FONTAINAS,  Frans  Hals  (Les  Grands  Artistes).     Paris. 

FROMENTIN,  Old  Masters  of  Belgium  and  Holland.  Boston, 
1882. 

GEFFROY,  Rubens  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 

GERMAIN,  Les  Neerlandais  en  Bourgogne.    Bruxelles,  1909, 

GOFFIN,  Thierry  Bouts.    Bruxelles,  1912. 

GUIFFREY,  Van  Dyck.    Paris,  1882. 

HALE,  Vermeer  of  Delft.     Boston,  1913. 

HAVARD,  The  Dutch  School  of  Painting.    London,  1885. 

HELLENA,  Gerard  Terborck.    Bruxelles,  1912. 

HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT,  Jan  Vermeer  van  Delft  en  Carel  Fabritius. 
Amsterdam,  1907. 

HOUBRAKEN,  Vie  des  Peintres  hollandais.    Amsterdam,  1719. 

HYMANS,  Lea  Van  Eyck  (Les  Grands  Artistes).     Paris. 

IMMERZEEL,  De  Leven  en  Werken  der  Hollandsche  en  Vlaamsche 
Kunst  Schilders.  Amsterdam,  1856-63. 


Iviii        BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS 

LAFOND,  Roger  van  der  Weyden.     Bruxelles,  1912. 

MANTZ,  Adrien  Brouwer. 

MICHEL,  Rubens.    London,  1899. 

MICHEL,  Paul  Potter  (Les  Grands  Artistes).     Paris. 

MICHEL,  Rembrandt.    New  York,  1894. 

MICHEL,  Gerard  Terburg  et  sa  Famille.    Paris,  1888. 

MICHIELS,  Histoire  de  la  Peinture  Flamande.    Paris,  1865- 

1876. 

MOES,  Frans  Hals.    Bruxelles,  1909. 
PEYRE,  Teniers  (Les  Grands  Artistes).     Paris. 
RIAT,  Rysdael  (Les  Grands  Artistes).     Paris. 
ROOSES,  Chefs  d'CEuvres  d'Antoine  Van  Dyck.    Anvers,  1901. 
ROOSES,  Rubens.    London,  1904. 

ROOSES,  Art  in  Flanders  (Ars  Una  Series).     New  York,  1914. 
SCHMIDT-DEGENER,  Adrien  Brouwer.    Bruxelles,  1912. 
STEVENSON,  Rubens.    New  York,  1909. 
VAN  DYKE,  Old  Dutch  and  Flemish  Masters  (Cole's  engravings). 

New  York,  1895. 
VAN    MANDER,  Leven    der    Nederlandsche    en  Hoogduitsche 

Schilders.    Amsterdam,  1660. 
VAN  MANDER,  Lime  des  Peintres  (Hymans  edition).    Paris, 

1884. 

VAN  ZYPE,  Vermeer  de  Delft.    Bruxelles,  1912. 
VERHAEREN,  Rembrandt  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
VOSMAER,  Rembrandt.    Paris,  1877. 
WAUTERS,  Hans  Memling.    Bruxelles,  1893. 
WAUTERS,  Flemish  Painting.    London,  1885. 
WEALE,  Hubert  and  John  Van  Eyck.    London,  1907. 
WESTRHEENE,  Jan  Steen. 

GERMAN  PAINTING 

CONWAY,  Literary  Remains  of  Albrecht  Diirer.    London,  1889. 
Cox,  Painters  and  Sculptors  (Chapter  on  Holbein).    New  York, 
1907. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS         lix 

CUST,  Diirer:  A  Study  of  His  Life  and  Works.    London,  1897. 

DA  VIES,  Holbein.    London,  1903. 

DIJRER,  Records  of  Journeys  to  Venice  and  Low  Countries  (Fry 

edition).     Boston,  1913. 
EPHRUSSI,  Diirer  et  ses  dessins.    Paris,  1882. 
EYE,  Leben  und  Wirken  Albrecht  Diirer's.    Nordlingen,  1860. 
GAUTHIEZ,  Holbein  (Les  Grands  Artistes).     Paris. 
GIRODIE,  Martin  Schongauer.     Paris,  1910. 
HEATON,  Life  of  Albrecht  Diirer.    London,  1870. 
JANITSCHEK,  Geschichte  der  deutschen  Malerei.    Berlin,  1890. 
MERLO,  Die  Meister  der  altkolnischen  Malerschule. 
MOORE,  Albert  Diirer.    London,  1905. 
REAU,  Les  Primitifs  allemands  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris, 

1910. 

ROSENBERG,  Sebald  und  Barthel  Beham. 
SCHIEBLER  UND  ALDENHOVEN,  Geschwlite  der  Kolner  Maler- 

schule.     Lubeck,  1902. 

SCHUCHARDT,  Lucas  Cranoch's  Leben  und  Werke,  1851-71. 
SPRINGER,  Albrecht  Diirer.    Berlin,  1892. 
THODE,  Die  Malerschule  von  Niirnberg.    Frankfurt,  1891. 
WOLFF,  Michael  Packer.    Berlin,  1910. 
WOLFFLIN,  Die  Kunst  A.  Diirer s.    Munich,  1905. 
WOLTMANN,  Holbein  und  seine  Zeit.    Leipzig,  1876. 
WORNUM,  Life  and  Work  of  Holbein.    London,  1867. 
WURZBACH,  Martin  Schongauer. 

SPANISH  PAINTING 

ARMSTRONG,  Velasquez.    London,  1897. 

BERUETE,  Velasquez.    London,  1897. 

BERUETE  Y  MORET,  School  of  Madrid.    London,  1909. 

CAFFIN,  Old  Spanish  Masters  (Cole's  engravings).    New  York, 

1907. 
CEAN-BERMUDEZ,  Diccionario  Historico  de  los  mas  Ilustres 

Profesores  de  las  Bellas  Aries  en  Espana.    Madrid,  1800. 


Ix          BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS 

Cossio,  El  Greco.    Madrid,  1908. 

DIEULAFOY,  Art  in  Spain  and  Portugal  (Ars  Una  Series). 

New  York,  1914. 

FAURE,  Velasquez  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
JUSTI,  Diego  Velasquez  und  sein  Jahrhundert.    Bonn,  1903. 
LAFOND,  Murillo  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
LAFOND,  Ribera  et  Zurburan  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 
LEFORT,  Murillo  et  son  Ecole. 
LEFORT,  La  Peinture  espagnole.    Paris,  1893. 
LEFORT,  Velasquez.    Paris,  1888. 
PALOMINO,  Vidas   de  los  Pintores  y  Estatuarios  Eminentes 

Espanoles. 

RICKETTS,  The  Prado  and  Its  Masterpieces.    London,  1903. 
SENTENACH,  Painters  of  the  School  of  Seville.    London,  1904. 
STEVENSON,  Velasquez.    London,  1899. 
STIRLING,  Annals  of  the  Artists  of  Spain.    London,  1891. 
STIRLING,  Velasquez  and  His  Works.    London,  1855. 
TUBINO,  Estudios  sobre  el  Arte  en  Espana.    Seville,  1886. 
VIARDOT,  Notices  sur  les  principaux  Peintres  de  I'Espagne. 
WILLIAMSON,  Velasquez.    London. 

FRENCH  PAINTING 

BOUCHOT,  Les  Clouets  et  CorneUle  de  Lyon.    Paris,  1892. 

BOUCHOT,  Les  Primitifs  francais.    Paris,  1904. 

BOUYER,  Claude  Lorrain  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris,  1904. 

CHARVET,  Jean  Perreal.    Paris. 

CURMER,  L'(Euvre  de  Jean  Fouquet.    Paris. 

DESJARDINS,  Poussin  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 

DIMIER,  Les  Primitifs  francais  (Les  Grand  Artistes).     Paris. 

DIMIER,  French  Painting  in  the  XVI  Century.    London,  1904. 

GERMAIN,  Les  Neerlandais  en  Bourgogne.    Bruxelles,  1909. 

GERMAIN,  Les  Clouets  (Les  Grands  Artistes).    Paris. 

GRUYER,  Les  Quarante  Fouquets.    Paris,  1900. 

HOURTICQ,  Art  in  France  (Ars  Una  Series).    New  York,  1911. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  OLD  MASTERS         Ixi 

LABORDE,  La  Renaissance  des  Arts  a  la  Cour  de  France.    Paris, 

1855. 

Loo,  L' Exposition  des  Primitifs  francais.    Bruxelles,  1904. 
MANTZ,  La  Peinture  franyaise  du  IX9  au  XV  P  Siede.   Paris, 

1898. 

PATTISON,  Claude  Lorrain.    Paris,  1884. 
POILLON,  Nicolas  Poussin.    Paris. 


THE   NATIONAL   GALLERY 


1     NOTE  ON  THE  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

one  so  comparatively  unknown  as  Solario.  But  the 
National  Gallery  people  are  quick  enough  to  change 
names  when  once  satisfied  that  the  change  is  a  proper 
one.  The  old  (Burton?)  catalogue  contained  excellent 
biographical  notices  of  the  painters.  In  the  present 
catalogue  the  same  kind  of  biographies  appear,  only 
modernised,  in  keeping  with  recent  research. 

Another,  a  negative  virtue  of  the  National  Gallery, 
calls  for  mention.  The  attendants  in  cahrge  do  not 
worry  the  visitor  with  attentions  in  the  hope  of  a  fee. 
In  some  of  the  Italian  galleries  life  is  made  miserable 
by  officious  attendants  who  insist  upon  pointing  out 
obvious  facts  about  the  worst  pictures,  or  giving  you 
misinformation  about  the  best  ones.  In  the  London 
Gallery  the  officials  help  people  continually  in  locating 
pictures,  but  they  do  so  only  on  application  and  with- 
out fee.  Photographs  of  the  pictures  are  sold  in  the 
gallery,  but  usually  they  are  expensive  and  not  very 
good.  Reproductions  in  cheap  book  form  are  issued 
by  Hanfstaengl  and  should  be  used  for  reference  and 
memory-aid  in  other  European  galleries. 

As  for  the  pictures  themselves  in  the  London  Gallery, 
there  are  nearly  three  thousand  of  them,  though,  of 
course  all,  of  them  are  not  hung  at  any  one  time.  The 
gallery  started  with  the  Angerstein  Collection  in  1824 
and  has  been  steadily  augmented  ever  since  by  gifts 
of  various  English  collections — those  of  Vernon,  Wynn 
Ellis,  Vaughan,  Salting,  for  instances.  Additions  by 
purchase  have  been  made  from  time  to  time  either 


NOTE  ON  THE  NATIONAL  GALLERY    5 

by  public  subscription  or  government  grant.  In  that 
way  important  pictures  such  as  the  Ansidei  Madonna, 
the  Titian  Ariosto,  the  Holbein  Duchess  of  Milan, 
and  others,  have  come  into  the  collection.  The  gal- 
lery seems  the  natural  heir  of  the  great  masterpieces 
that  England  possessed  and  still  possesses.  England 
came  by  these  treasures  of  art  in  the  early  days,  when 
travel  to  Italy  was  a  fashion  of  the  rich,  and  bringing 
back  art-plunder  through  Belgium  and  Holland  was  a 
more  or  less  patriotic  duty.  The  National  Gallery  year 
by  year  keeps  getting  these  pictures  either  by  purchase 
or  bequest.  No  wonder  it  is  a  famous  collection. 

The  Italian  pictures  in  importance,  as  in  numbers, 
take  the  lead  among  the  old  masters.  There  are  con- 
spicuous examples  of  the  Primitives  and  occasionally 
a  famous  altar-piece  such  as  the  large  one  by  Orcagna. 
The  fifteenth  century  is  well  represented  with  Fra 
Filippo,  Botticelli,  Filippino,  Lorenzo  di  Credi,  Peru- 
gino,  Francia,  Costa,  Mantegna,  Antonello  da  Messina, 
Solario.  There  is  a  showing  of  Crivelli  that  cannot  be 
matched  anywhere  save  possibly  at  Milan,  two  won- 
derful pictures  by  Piero  della  Francesca,  a  masterpiece 
by  Paolo  Uccello,  the  really  great  Doge  Loredano  por- 
trait by  Bellini,  and  many  other  exceptional  examples 
of  the  Early  Renaissance  men.  The  sixteenth-century 
schools  are  even  more  brilliantly  shown,  especially 
the  Venetian  School  with  its  famous  Titians,  such  as  the 
Ariadne  and  Bacchus,  the  superb  St.  George  and  the 
Dragon  by  Tintoretto,  the  Family  of  Darius  by  Paolo 


6    NOTE  ON  THE  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

Veronese,  the  excellent  Good  Samaritan  of  Bassano. 
No  gallery  in  Europe  has  such  a  remarkable  group  of 
Moronis  in  which  the  Tailor  and  the  Lawyer  stand  out 
pre-eminently  fine.  Italian  art  in  the  National  Gallery 
is  a  very  important  item. 

The  representation  of  the  early  Flemish  School  is 
also  very  important.  What  could  be  finer  than  the 
Arnolfini  portraits  by  Van  Eyck,  the  Deposition  by 
Bouts,  or  the  two  large  panels  by  Gerard  David! 
They  are  superb.  Many  examples  of  the  school  sup- 
port them,  and  the  recently  acquired  Gossart  of  the 
Nativity  is  a  fine  example,  showing  the  decline  of  the 
school.  Of  the  Dutchmen,  Hals  is  not  well  represented, 
but  there  are  several  famous  Rembrandts  of  both  his 
early  and  late  period,  and  many  pictures  by  his  con- 
temporaries and  followers.  There  is  a  group  of  Cuyps 
that  cannot  be  matched  elsewhere,  and  a  notable  gather- 
ing of  Ruisdaels,  Hobbemas,  and  Wynants.  The  later 
Flemings  come  in  with  a  whole  room  almost  entirely 
devoted  to  Rubens  and  Van  Dyck — the  latter  showing 
at  his  best  in  the  matchless  Van  der  Geest  portrait,  and 
the  former,  also  at  his  best,  in  the  Drunken  Silenus,  the 
Judgment  of  Paris,  the  Chapeau  de  Foil. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  gallery  is  strong  in  Spanish 
pictures,  though  there  is  the  absolutely  perfect  bust  por- 
trait of  Philip  by  Velasquez,  besides  the  famous  Rokeby 
Venus  and  the  Christ  at  the  Column.  That  the  attri- 
butions of  the  last  two  may  be  questioned  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  their  value  as  art.  They  are 


NOTE  ON  THE  NATIONAL  GALLERY    7 

masterpieces.  So,  too,  in  a  lesser  sense  the  fine  Ribalta 
recently  acquired.  The  French  School  has  a  good 
showing  of  Claudes  and  Poussins,  but  otherwise  is  not 
very  strong.  The  English  School  is,  of  course,  shown 
in  scores  of  good  pictures  by  Reynolds,  Gainsborough, 
Hoppner,  Lawrence,  Turner,  but  they  are  not  dealt 
with  in  this  series  of  guide-books.  The  student,  how- 
ever, should  give  them  his  attention. 

The  average  tourist  may  "  do "  the  National  Gallery 
in  an  hour,  but  the  student  can  spend  weeks  or  months 
here.  The  pictures  should  be  seen  again  and  again. 
Each  visit  will  reveal  something  new — perhaps  some- 
thing rich  and  rare.  In  addition  to  the  old  masters  here 
and  in  the  Wallace  Collection  profitable  trips  may  be 
made  to  the  South  Kensington  Museum  and  Hampton 
Court,  where  there  are  a  number  of  Italian,  Dutch,  and 
Flemish  pictures.  The  gallery  at  Dulwich  is  only  an 
hour  from  Trafalgar  Square,  and  there  are  a  few  good 
pictures  in  it  worth  seeing. 


THE  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

2604.  Amberger,  Chris  top  h.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  Done 
in  an  Albrecht-Diirer  style,  with  minute  strokes 
of  the  brush  in  the  hair  and  beard  as  though 
making  a  pattern  for  some  line-engraver  to  follow. 
It  is  good  in  characterisation. 

••>  663.  Angelico,  Fra.  Christ  Surrounded  by  Angels. 
The  predella  of  an  altar-piece  from  San  Dome- 
nico,  Fiesole.  The  faces  are  interesting  as  express- 
ing the  spiritual  quality  of  the  painter,  and  the 
haloes  and  colours  are  effective,  but  it  is  not  an 
important  work  of  the  master.  In  fact  the  draw- 
ing suggests  the  help  of  assistants.  No.  582,  at- 
tributed to  his  school,  is  a  bright  bit  of  colour. 

I  673.   Antonello  da   Messina.    Salvator  Mundi.    A 

picture  that  reveals  (noticeably  in  the  hair)  some 
of  the  more  minute  Flemish  style  of  work  which 
Antonello  is  said  by  Vasari  to  have  learned  from 
Jan  van  Eyck,  but  which  in  all  probability  he  got 
from  Flemish  artists  in  Italy.  The  colour  is  dark- 
ened, perhaps  by  time.  Very  early  work,  and  not 
so  positive  in  statement  as  No.  1141.  The  line  of 
the  red  coat  at  the  neck  was  originally  higher  and 
was  painted  out,  leaving  a  line  and  a  forefinger 
still  showing  on  the  neck. 

1141.    Portrait  of  a   Young  Man.     Possibly  a  like- 

*        ness  of  the  painter  himself.     In  the  style  of  the 
9 


10  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

portrait  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1134)  and  probably  of 
about  the  same  time.  A  superb  portrait  of  the 
Doge  Loredano  type,  only  more  precise  and  posi- 
tive, done  with  infinite  care  even  in  the  smallest 
details.  Notice  the  pains  expended  in  drawing 
such  a  thing  as  the  eyeball — the  roundness  of  the 
white  in  the  left  one.  The  colour  is  excellent. 

1166.  The  Crucifixion.  It  is  evidently  a  work  done 

in  the  1470s,  and  has  been  hurt  by  restorations. 
The  types  are  Flemish,  like  those  in  the  same  sub- 
ject by  the  same  painter  in  the  Antwerp  Gallery 
(No.  4).  The  colour  is  unusual  as  also  the  land- 
scape. 

1418.  St.  Jerome  in  His  Study.  The  picture  is  al- 

*  most  Flemish  in  the  windows  and  the  landscapes 
seen  through  them,  as  also  in  the  still-life  and  the 
figure  of  the  saint.  It  has  good  light  and  air  and 
is  well  held  together.  A  very  interesting  panel, 
but  perhaps  not  improved  by  the  framework  of 
stone  about  it. 

1427.  Baldung,  Hans.  The  Dead  Christ.  It  is  angular 
in  the  folding  of  the  drapery,  and  the  figure  of 
Christ  is  rather  harsh  in  its  lines,  but  the  picture 
is  strong  in  colour  and  tragic  in  its  sentiment. 
What  extraordinary  reds !  Notice  the  donors  in  the 
predella  at  the  bottom  kneeling  in  that  odd  little 
landscape. 

245.    Portrait    of   a    Senator.     It    has    the   forged 

monogram  of  Albrecht  Diirer  at  the  right,  and  is 
perhaps  not  now  rightly  attributed.  Baldung  was 
a  friend  of  Diirer,  and  influenced  by  him,  but  he 
never  drew  with  Diirer's  accuracy.  The  mi- 
nute workmanship  in  the  hair  and  fur  is  sugges- 
tive of  Diirer,  but  much  more  fussy  and  trifling. 


BASAITI  11 

1437.  Barnaba  da  Modena.  Descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  With  Sienese  influence  showing,  chiefly 
in  the  heads.  It  is  quite  fine  in  colour  and  rich  in 
its  golden  haloes. 

29.  Baroccio,  Federigo.  Holy  Family.  It  belongs 
to  the  Decadence.  Yes,  but  is  it  not  joyous  in 
spirit  and  fine  in  colour?  Moreover,  it  is  well 
drawn  and  has  a  good  atmospheric  setting  with 
proper  light  and  shade. 

1694.  Bartolommeo,  Fra.  Virgin  and  Child  with  St. 
John.  A  gracefully  knit-together  pyramidal  group 
such  as  Raphael,  following  Bartolommeo,  after- 
ward produced  with  improvements  of  his  owrn. 
The  background  is  very  light  in  tone  and  the  land- 
scape almost  Umbrian  in  its  feeling  of  space  and 
distance.  The  Madonna's  profile  and  hands  are 
flat,  as  are  the  figures  of  the  children — the  result 
of  too  much  cleaning  and  restoration.  The  Christ 
and  Magdalen  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1115)  has  a 
similar  light  landscape  at  the  back  and  is  by  Bar- 
tolommeo, though  there  put  down  to  Albertinelli. 

287.  Bartolommeo  Veneto  (Veneziano).  Portrait 
of  Ludovico  Martinengo.  A  little  pinched  and 
cramped  in  the  drawing  of  the  face.  The  colour  is 
rich  and  novel.  The  costume  dictated  the  plac- 
ing of  the  figure  and  is  a  bit  uneasy.  A  picture 
of  much  interest. 

2507.  -  —  A  Lady.  Unfortunately  it  has  been  flattened 
in  the  throat  and  chest  by  cleaning,  but  it  still 
has  a  unique  charm  of  type  and  colour.  Note  the 
fillet  about  the  hair  and  the  handsome  dress.  It 
may  not  be  by  the  painter  to  whom  it  is  assigned. 

599.  Basaiti,  Marco.  Madonna  of  the  Meadow.  A 
very  good  example  of  a  man  who  did  mannered 


12  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

work  following  Bellini,  and  possibly  Mantegna, 
and  whose  pictures  have  been  handed  around  to 
Bellini,  Carpaccio,  Marconi,  and  others  of  the 
Venetian  School.  His  peculiar  ear-marks  are  his 
tree,  rock,  and  mountain  drawing,  his  white  build- 
ings in  the  background,  his  wild  Dalmatian-coast 
landscape.  His  types  are  less  distinctive,  and  may 
often  be  confused  with  those  of  other  early  Vene- 
tians. This  picture  is  harsh  in  the  blues,  and 
the  flesh  is  wanting  in  solidity.  The  landscape 
is  effective.  Notice  the  dead  tree  and  also  the 
foliage  on  the  small  trees  near  by.  They  appear 
again  in  the  Bellini  Resurrection  at  Berlin  (No. 
1177A),  which  is  probably  by  Basaiti. 

281.    St.  Jerome  Reading.    With  a  landscape  quite 

in  Basaiti's  manner.  The  picture  is  somewhat 
hard  and  brittle.  Even  the  sky  is  glassy.  The 
figure  of  St.  Jerome  merely  repeats  the  note  of 
blue  in  the  sky.  Not  a  bad  picture  but  hardly  a 
masterpiece.  The  Cima  of  the  same  subject  hang- 
ing near  by  should  be  studied  for  resemblances. 

2498.   A   Young   Venetian.    A  bust  portrait,  with 

some  curious  drawing  in  the  eyes,  hair,  neck,  and 
shoulders.  It  seems  very  odd  that  any  painter 
should  place  a  figure  on  a  panel  in  such  an  awk- 
ward way.  It  is  an  interesting  type  for  all  its 
oddity.  Without  the  signature,  who  would  have 
thought  of  Basaiti  as  its  painter?  It  would  have 
been  given  to  some  one  like  Solario.  All  of  which 
suggests  the  possibilities  that  lie  hidden  in  certain 
little-known  painters. 

173.    Bassano,  Jacopo.     Portrait  of  a  Gentleman.     A 

picture  quite  beautiful  in  its  atmospheric  setting, 
r-     in  its  light,  and  in  the  landscape  seen  through  the 


BELLINI  13 

window.  The  still-life  on  the  table  is  also  good. 
The  figure  itself  wants  in  accuracy.  The  hands 
are  badly  drawn,  and  the  mannerism  of  the  pointed 
fingers  has  somehow  crept  into  the  face.  That 
too  is  pointed  and  sharp  in  the  nose  and  chin. 
The  eyes  are  narrow  and  ill-placed.  The  placing 
of  the  figure  on  the  panel  is  very  good.  The  ruff 
or  collar  seems  too  white  and  spotty. 

277.   The  Good  Samaritan.    An  excellent  Bassano 

*  in  colour  and  in  drawing.  The  central  figures  are 
very  well  modelled — that  is,  realistically  presented 
— and  the  action  is  quite  believable.  Moreover, 
the  figures  keep  within  the  picture  frame  and  are  a 
part  of  the  landscape.  What  a  very  good  land- 
scape it  is  with  its  North  Italian  hills  and  its  fine 
deep  sky!  Bassano  seldom  hit  the  mark  so  fairly 
as  in  this  picture.  It  has  decided  quality. 

228.    Christ  Driving   the  Money  Changers  Out  of 

y^.  the  Temple.  Not  wanting  in  good  action  nor  in 
light,  atmosphere,  and  colour.  It  is  not  perhaps  so 
satisfactory  as  the  smaller  Good  Samaritan  (No. 
277),  but  is  nevertheless  a  fine  Bassano. 

808.  Bellini,  Gentile.  St.  Peter  Martyr.  A  clearly 
outlined  head  that  belongs  somewhere  between  the 
early  sixteenth  and  the  late  fifteenth  centuries  of 
Venetian  art.  The  signature  of  Giovanni  Bellini 
upon  it  is  declared  to  be  false,  but  one  is  not  much 
surer  of  his  elder  brother  having  done  the  work, 
though  it  looks  like  a  Gentile  in  its  drawing. 

1440.   St.  Dominic.    Somewhat  hurt  by  restoration, 

but  still  fine  in  its  decorative  quality.  Once  as- 
signed to  Giovanni  Bellini,  but  the  difference  be- 
tween it  and  the  Doge  Loredano  portrait,  for  in- 
stance, is  very  wide.  It  is  now  given  to  Gentile 


14  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

Bellini.     What  a  fine  background !    The  signature 
is  no  doubt  false. 

750.  Bellini,  Gentile,  School  of.  The  Madonna  and 
Child  Enthroned  with  Saints  and  the  Doge  Mo- 
cenigo.  This  is  not  the  sort  of  thing  that  we  look 
to  Gentile  or  Carpaccio  to  do.  They  seem  more  at 
home  in  the  historic  or  legendary  theme.  Here  the 
painter  is  rich  and  rare  in  his  brocades,  doing 
them  with  much  depth  of  colour  and  beauty  of 
pattern;  but  the  Madonna  is  heavy,  the  Doge 
fat,  and  St.  John  lean.  St.  Christopher  is  an  un- 
successful addition  to  the  group.  Look  at  the 
sky,  the  hills,  and  the  sea.  They,  at  least,  are 
well  knit  together.  Attributed  also  to  Lazzaro 
Sebastiani. 

1  726.  Bellini,  Giovanni.  Christ's  Agony  in  the  Car- 
*  den.  A  picture  with  a  strangely  beautiful  land- 
scape that  seems  to  have  been  studied  directly  from 
a  nature  model.  Notice  the  mountain  at  the  left 
with  the  sand-slip  at  its  base,  and  the  background 
where  the  houses  are  struck  by  light  from  the  sky. 
The  figures  are  little  more  than  patches  of  bright 
colour.  The  sky  and  the  landscape  are  really  the 
picture.  The  river,  the  bridge,  the  banks  seem 
more  like  Mantegna  than  Bellini.  Notice  also  the 
Mantegnesque  draperies.  The  work  has  been  in- 
fluenced from  Padua,  although  there  is  little  more 
certainty  about  this  picture  than  about  the  same 
subject  by  Mantegna  (No.  1417)  in  this  gallery. 
It  is  probably  by  a  follower  of  Mantegna,  and  that 
follower  may  have  been  Bellini,  but,  as  said,  there 
is  little  certainty  about  it.  Some  features  of  the 
tree  and  rock  drawing  suggest  Basaiti,  but  they 
are  possibly  nothing  more  than  Basaiti  following 


BELLINI  15 

Bellini.  There  are  suggestions  of  Basaiti  also  in 
the  Mantegna  (No.  1417)  which  are  perhaps  to 
be  accounted  for  in  the  same  way.  The  student 
will  notice  that  in  this  gallery,  as  in  other  Euro- 
pean collections,  there  are  a  number  of  widely  vary- 
ing canvases  put  down  to  Bellini.  Much  school 
work  and  some  of  the  work  of  pupils  is  still  under 
his  name.  Compare  here,  for  instance,  the  fine 
Redeemer  (No.  1233)  with  the  superficial  Circum- 
cision (No.  1455),  or  the  landscape  of  the  Agony  in 
the  Garden  (No.  726)  with  the  landscape  of  No. 
280  or  No.  812.  There  is  wide  divergence.  The 
pictures  of  Bellini  or  his  school  are  not  yet  an  open 
book  that  one  who  runs  may  read. 

Madonna  and  Child.    There  were  many  and 

very  different  Madonnas  that  came  from  the  Bel- 
lini workshop,  all  duly  signed  with  the  master's 
name.  This  time  it  happens  to  be  a  pretty  type 
of  Madonna  with  porcelain  face  and  hands  and 
rather  dusky  shadows.  There  is  some  depth  of 
colour  to  it.  Compare  its  line,  colour,  modelling, 
surface,  with  No.  2901  for  a  contrast. 

Landscape  with  the  Death  of  St.  Peter  Martyr. 

A  remarkable  woods  for  an  early  Venetian  to  have 
produced.  Note  how  the  tree  trunks  are  drawn 
and  how  the  leaves  are  hit  by  light.  The  woods 
has  depth  as  well  as  breadth  and  height.  How 
well  the  background  and  foreground  are  bound 
together  and  what  a  fine  sky  with  white  clouds! 
There  is  small  reason  to  suppose  it  done  by  Bellini 
though  it  may  be  from  his  workshop. 

Madonna   Adoring   Child.     The   type  of  the 

Madonna  is  almost  heroic  in  size,  dignity,  and 
poise.  Her  head  seems  to  be  almost  in  the  beauti- 


16  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

ful  clouds  of  the  sky  at  the  back.  Even  the  child 
is  unusual  in  gravity  and  seriousness.  The  pres- 
ence of  both  is  noble.  The  drawing  is  a  bit  hard 
and  the  red  robe  angular;  but  what  fine  colour! 
What  a  decorative  panel!  It  has  been  injured 
somewhat  by  repainting  in  the  faces,  hands,  haloes, 
clouds.  Compare  it  with  Nos.  280,  1455,  or  726 
if  you  would  get  an  idea  of  the  different  styles  put 
down  to  Bellini. 

V  189.    Portrait  of  the  Doge  Loredano.     Here   Bel- 

**  lini  goes  beyond  himself  in  a  masterwork  of  his 
later  years.  Perhaps  he  was  fortunate  in  his 
sitter.  It  was  not  always  that  a  painter  could  get 
such  a  character,  with  such  a  face,  to  sit  to  him. 
It  is  a  stern,  decisive  face,  of  great  dignity,  proud, 
fearless,  and  yet  serene,  self-contained,  calm  with 
a  majestic  calmness.  But  Bellini  improved  his 
opportunity.  How  simply  yet  truly  he  drew  him, 
without  any  attempt  at  grandeur  or  elegance  or 
even  thought  of  doing  a  masterpiece.  He  did 
what  was  before  him  as  cleanly  and  precisely  as 
he  knew  how,  treating  the  ducal  robe  and  cap  with 
the  same  degree  of  care  as  the  face.  All  he  added 
was  a  flat  blue  ground  and  a  brownish-red  para- 
pet in  front.  Perhaps  he  builded  better  than  he 
knew.  At  least  he  wrought  a  masterpiece  that  has 
been  admired  for  many  years. 

1233.    The   Blood  of   the   Redeemer.     It  is  almost 

*  surely  by  Bellini,  painting  under  the  influence  of 
Mantegna,  although  it  is  doubtful  if  there  ever  will 
be  a  certainty  about  where  this  picture  and  the 
one  related  to  it  (No.  726)  really  belong.  Both 
are  good  pictures.  This  one  is  beautiful  in  the 
thin,  angular  white  figure  against  the  darker 


BENOZZO  GOZZOLI  17 

ground.  And,  too,  it  is  very  impressive  in  senti- 
ment. It  seems  of  a  piece  with  the  beautiful 
Christ  in  the  Act  of  Blessing  in  the  Louvre  and 
the  noble  Pieta  of  the  Brera.  Notice  the  little 
angel  with  the  red  slippers  below.  How  pathetic 
he  is! 

The    Circumcision.     The    types   are  rather 

pretty  and  devoid  of  character.  The  colouring  is 
somewhat  of  the  same  stamp.  The  surface  is 
smooth  and  the  signature  very  prominent  as 
though  some  might  have  doubts  about  the  attri- 
bution (as  indeed  they  have),  and  needed  the 
presence  of  a  name  to  reassure  them.  It  is  hardly 
convincing  as  a  Bellini  or  as  a  great  work  under 
any  other  name. 

Madonna  and  Child.    A  fresco  in  an  early 

Bellinesque  manner  with  harshly  drawn  faces, 
necks,  arms,  hands  and  angular,  sharply  folded 
drapery.  There  is  some  charm  in  the  Madonna 
type.  [Now  assigned  to  Montagna.] 

Benozzo  Gozzoli.  Madonna  and  Child  with 
Angels.  No  picture  of  Benozzo's  in  the  northern 
galleries  equals  his  splendid  fresco  in  tne  Riccardi 
palace,  Florence;  but  this  picture  is  an  excellent 
tempera  work  of  his  early  period.  The  colour  is 
high  hi  key  and  supported  by  much  gold  work, 
the  patterns  of  which  are  beautiful.  Look  at  the 
faces,  wings,  and  golden  garments  of  the  angels, 
the  flowers  in  the  foreground,  and  the  suggestion 
of  trees  and  sky.  The  figures  are  grouped  about 
the  throne  making  a  symmetrically  balanced  com- 
position. 

BenoZZO  Gozzoli,  School  of.     Virgin,  Child  and 

Angels.    It  is  a  little  severe  in  the  workmanship 


18  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

and  has  no  great  depth  of  feeling,  but  is  it  not 
charming  as  colour?  The  brilliancy  and  resonance 
of  the  colour  are  remarkable.  Notice  the  two  little 
ill-drawn  angels  at  the  bottom,  so  sad  of  face,  but 
again  lovely  in  colour.  The  composition  is  a 
repetition  of  the  central  group  in  No.  283  with 
the  playing  angels  added  at  the  bottom.  The 
stone  screen  at  the  back  is  a  little  frail  and  the 
stone  seat  is  something  that  the  angels  seem  to  be 
standing  in,  as  though  it  were  water.  Look  at 
their  robes  at  the  bottom.  What  lovely  garments 
with  gold  patterns  on  orange-red  and  green! 
It  seems  almost  too  good  for  a  school  piece. 

909.  BenvenutO  di  Giovanni.  Madonna  Enthroned 
with  St.  Peter  and  St.  Nicholas.  A  triptych  of 
much  decorative  beauty.  The  costumes  are  or- 
nate. The  gold  ground  helps  the  richness  of 
effect.  With  naive  little  angels  at  the  top.  See 
the  little  panel  near  it  (No.  2482). 

631.  Bissolo,  Francesco.  (Ascribed  to.)  Portrait  of 
a  Lady.  The  type  is  handsome  and  the  picture 
still  has  beauty  of  colour  left  in  it.  What  a  fine 
dress!  The  largeness  of  the  type  is  peculiar  to 
Bissolo,  as  also  the  blond  colouring. 

719.  Bles,  Herri  Met  de.  (Ascribed  to.)  The  Mag- 
dalen. The  figure  and  face  are  like  Bles  as  we 
know  him  in  the  Antwerp  and  Brussels  galleries 
and  they  also  correspond  with  the  Magdalen  at  the 
foot  of  the  cross  in  the  Mount  Calvary  (No.  718) 
in  this  gallery.  But  Bles  and  his  pseudo  are  still 
something  of  a  problem.  What  good  colour,  and 
how  very  decorative! 

728.  Boltraffio,  Giovanni  Antonio.  Madonna  and 
*  Child.  A  fair  example  of  Boltraffio's  large  types 


BORDONE  19 

with  small  detailed  realism  of  hair  and  scarf  and 
pattern.  The  surface  enameled,  the  colour  rich, 
the  figures  heavy.  The  child's  head  poorly 
drawn  and  his  right  arm  invisible.  The  sugges- 
tion of  sky  is  not  bad. 

2673.    Narcissus.    A  pretty  profile  with  decorative 

bays  and  a  charming  little  landscape  at  the  back. 
Another  version  in  the  Uffizi  (No.  3417).  Com- 
pare the  hair  here  with  that  in  No.  2496  put  down 
to  Boltraffio,  also  the  drawing  of  the  profile. 
There  is  a  difference. 

L843.    Bonfigli,  Benedetto.    Adoration  of  Magi.    By 

some  early  Umbrian  master  other  than  Bonfigli. 
This  picture  shows  what  is  sometimes  called 
"Umbrian  sentiment."  There  is  good  work  in 
the  gold  and  the  colours.  The  drawing  is  crude,  of 
course. 

736.  Bonsignori,  Francesco.  Portrait  of  a  Venetian 
Senator.  It  is  right  enough  in  its  outline  drawing, 
but  is  not  so  convincing  in  its  modelling.  The 
head  is  huge  but  without  much  feeling  of  weight. 
How  bright  the  red  of  the  coat! 

674.    Bordone,    Paris.    Portrait   of  a   Lady.    A   pa- 

*  trician  type  (even  to  the  pudgy  fat  hands),  with  a 
haughtiness  of  air  and  a  well-fed  look.  There  is 
a  glimpse  of  an  ancestral  hall  behind  the  figure. 
The  surface  has  had  much  care  expended  upon  it, 
with  the  result  that  the  face  and  hair  are  too 
brittle,  too  porcelain-like,  and  the  dress  too  glit- 
tering in  its  sheen.  The  figure  is  well  indicated, 
but  it  stands  out  of  its  envelope  of  air  instead  of 
in  it.  However,  it  is  an  imposing-looking  portrait 
in  Bordone's  most  marked  style,  with  his  rosy 
flesh  and  ropy  hair  in  evidence. 


20  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

637.   Daphnis    and   Chloe.    Graceful    well-drawn 

*  figures  with  some  of  the  fed-on-roses  looking  flesh 
that  Bordone  affected  so  often.  The  figures  are  a 
little  over-modelled  and  protrusive,  but  the  drap- 
eries are  quieter  than  usual.  A  good  example  of  a 
style  and  a  theme  that  Bordone  used  a  number  of 
times  but  seldom  with  as  satisfactory  results  as 
are  here  shown. 

1077.    Borgognone,  Ambrogio  Fossano.    A  Triptych. 

With  an  Agony  in  the  Garden  at  the  left  and  a 
Christ  bearing  the  Cross  at  the  right.  It  is 
weaker  than  No.  298  and  has  less  decorative 
charm  about  it,  but  the  same  delicate  sentiment 
is  present.  Look  at  the  odd  little  angels  with  lutes 
in  the  central  panel  of  the  Madonna  and  Child. 
There  is  more  red  in  the  flesh  than  is  usual  with 
Borgognone  and  more  brilliancy  of  colour  in  the 
robes.  The  landscapes  are  clear  with  good  skies. 
See  also  No.  1410. 

298.    Marriage    of    the    Two    St.    Catherines.      In 

Borgognone's  best  manner,  with  his  usual  lead- 
coloured  flesh,  and  some  zigzagging  in  the  robes; 
but  with  delicate  sentiment  in  all  the  types. 
There  is  almost  always  good  decorative  effect  pro- 
ceeding from  the  pictures  of  this  painter  because 
of  the  richness  of  robes,  architecture,  patterns, 
flowers,  gilding.  What  a  handsome  throne  the 
Virgin  occupies!  And  what  a  crown  and  robe 
St.  Catherine  (at  the  left)  wears!  A  fine  picture. 

1917.  Both,  Jan.  Italian  Landscape.  One  of  Both's 
usual  compositions  with  a  good  effect  of  warm 
sunlight — too  warm  for  comfort.  No.  71  is 
cooler  and  in  this  respect  better. 


BOTTICELLI  21 

592.    Botticelli,  SandtO.     Adoration  of  the  Magi.     A 

fine  panel  of  colour  with  some  bad  drawing  and  a 
rather  crude  landscape.  The  Madonna  is  the  so- 
called  Lucretia  Buti  type  of  Fra  Filippo;  the  other 
figures  are  suggestive  of  Botticelli  in  types  but  do 
not  show  his  usual  style  of  work.  It  is  possibly 
(as  Mr.  Berenson  contends)  the  very  earliest  ex- 
ample of  Botticelli,  which  may  account  for  the 
picture's  shortcomings.  However,  the  figures  are 
not  wanting  in  largeness  of  robe  and  bulk  of  body 
and  there  is  good  grouping  and  good  movement 
from  left  to  right,  which  are  not  characteristics  of 
any  one's  early  work.  The  picture  looks  like  school 
work. 

.033.    Adoration  of  Magi.     It  IS  not  SO  fine  in  its 

,  drawing  as  the  same  subject  by  Botticelli  in  the 
Uffizi  at  Florence  (No.  1286).  Some  portions  of 
it  are  careless  and  bad  in  drawing,  and  the  faces 
and  hands  lack  the  characterisation  shown  in  the 
Florentine  picture.  The  top  and  back  of  the  com- 
position are  almost  empty  and  devoid  of  interest, 
which  is  not  a  Botticelli  mannerism  or  ear-mark. 
The  landscape,  rocks,  church  towers,  gold-work, 
and  much  of  the  drawing  in  robes  and  figures 
would  seem  to  point  to  the  painter  of  Nos. 
1124  and  1412,  Amico  di  Sandro,  but  one  might 
hesitate  about  assigning  it  to  him  absolutely. 
There  are  features  in  the  landscape  such  as  the 
sky,  the  towers,  the  trees,  and  the  hills  that  sug- 
gest Jacopo  del  Sellajo;  and  there  are  other  fea- 
tures in  both  landscape  and  figures  that  suggest 
Botticini.  It  is  probably  by  some  Botticelli  fol- 
lower, and  the  personalities  of  these  followers  are 
not  so  distinct  as  to  avoid  confusion  and  un- 
certainty in  ascription.  The  same  hand  prob- 


22  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

ably  did  the  Adoration  in  the  Hermitage  (No.  3) 
there  ascribed  to  Botticelli.  There  is  a  fine  mass 
of  colour  in  the  centre  of  the  picture  where  the 
figures  form  an  irregular  pyramid.  Somewhat 
hurt  by  cleaning-room  processes. 

626.    Portrait  of  a  Young  Man.     A  face  of  much 

^  spirit  and  animation,  done  in  a  decided  Botti- 
celli manner,  though  once  ascribed  to  Masaccio. 
It  has  been  rubbed  and  grimed  by  cleaning,  but 
the  personal  quality,  both  of  the  sitter  and  the 
painter,  is  not  yet  rubbed  out  of  it.  Study  the 
drawing  of  the  mouth,  eyes,  and  hair. 

275.    Virgin  and  Child  with  St.  John  the  Baptist. 

A  work  of  some  morbid  charm  even  though  the 
attribution  be  questionable.  The  Madonna  is  a 
girlish  type  and  the  equally  girlish  St.  John  and 
the  angel,  with  the  corners  of  their  mouths  turned 
down,  help  out  the  strained  feminine  quality  of 
it.  The  Botticelli  hands  and  nails  are  here,  but 
there  is  a  lack  of  the  Botticelli  individuality  in 
the  matter  of  general  drawing.  The  filling  of  the 
circle  is  well  done  and  the  head-dress  and  robe  of 
the  Virgin  are  effectively  given.  But  it  is  a  little 
crude  for  all  that. 

915.   Mars  and  Venus.    This  is  an  early  attempt 

*  at  the  Greek  myth  in  Italian  art,  comparable  to 
the  Piero  di  Cosimo  (No.  698)  hanging  near  it. 
It  has  some  of  the  naive  awkwardness  of  the 
Piero,  but  is  more  formal  and  less  spirited  though 
better  drawn.  There  is  a  certain  cut-and-dried 
quality  about  it  difficult  to  explain.  Mars  sleeps 
to  order,  Venus  sits  up  to  order,  the  little  satyrs 
play  pranks  to  order.  Piero  rather  believed  in 


BOTTICELLI  23 

his  tale,  but  Botticelli  seems  rather  to  have  be- 
lieved in  his  models  and  his  drawing.  At  least 
so  it  appears  here,  though  seldom  elsewhere  in 
Botticelli.  The  robe  of  Venus  is  superb,  the 
helmet  of  Mars  well  painted,  the  linear  drawing 
everywhere  excellent,  and  the  landscape  very 
satisfactory.  Hurt  by  some  repainting. 

2906.  -  — Madonna  and  Child.  It  is  a  clean-looking 
picture  with  an  attractive  if  somewhat  pretty 
Madonna  and  an  awkward  Child.  The  colour  is 
bright,  the  drawing  fairly  good,  the  modelling 
rather  too  well  rounded  for  Botticelli,  and  the 
surface  a  bit  hard  and  glassy.  The  sentiment  of 
it  is  hardly  intense  enough  nor  the  line  hard  enough 
for  Botticelli.  The  landscape  seems  nearer  to 
him.  It  is  an  attractive  picture  but  whether  by 
Botticelli  or  not  seems  difficult  to  determine.  It 
has  likenesses  and  analogies  to  No.  275,  which  is 
some  sort  of  school  piece.  The  Botticellis  in 
this  gallery  do  not  agree  with  each  other  very 
well,  which  in  itself  suggests  the  presence  of  sev- 
eral hands. 

1034.   The  Nativity.    In  excessive  sentiment,  this 

quite  outsoars  even  Botticelli  himself.  Every- 
^  thing  is  in  agony  of  mind  and  soul,  including  the 
ox,  the  ass,  and  the  little  devils  in  the  lower 
corners  of  the  picture.  Notice  the  angels  below 
and  above  with  the  graceful  flutter  and  move- 
ment of  their  robes.  It  is  a  good  picture  with 
fine  lines  and  harmonious  colours,  but  the  drawing 
is  somewhat  careless.  It  is  possibly  by  the  Bot- 
ticelli follower  who  did  the  Annunciation  in  the 
Uffizi  (No.  1316)  and  the  Entombment  at  Munich 
(No.  1010). 


24  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

1412.    Botticelli,  Sandro,  School  of.    Virgin,  Child, 

*  and  St.    John.    A   picture   of   much   excellence, 
quite  aside  from  the  question  of  its  painter.    And 
it  is  not  bad  in  either  drawing  or  colour.    In  fact, 
Botticelli    and    Filippino    sometimes    did    worse 
things.    What  a  fine  type  the  little  St.  John  and 
his  younger  brother,   the  Child!    They  are  all 
three  of  a  family  and  all  have  bulbous  noses  that 
are  attractive  rather  than  otherwise.     Note  the 
graceful  oval  sweeps  of  drapery  in  the  centre  of 
one  of  which  the  Child  is  standing.     Note  also 
the  flowers  in  the  vase.     Mr.  Berenson  thinks 
this  picture  is  by  some  contemporary  of  Botti- 
celli whose  name  is  unknown  to  us.     He  gives 
him  the  name  of  Amico  di  Sandro.    There  is  no 
doubt  about  the  personality,  though  one  may  ob- 
ject to  giving  him  a  local  habitation  and  a  name. 
Too  much  history  is  constructed  in  that  fashion. 

1124.  Adoration  of  Magi.  This  picture  is  prob- 
ably by  the  painter  of  No.  1412,  the  so-called 
Amico  di  Sandro,  as  one  may  measurably  ascer- 
tain by  comparing  in  each  the  landscapes,  trees, 
skies,  faces,  hands,  haloes,  drawing  of  costumes 
and  figures,  colours,  etc.  It  is  by  no  means  so  at- 
tractive a  picture  as  No.  1412,  however.  To  be 
compared  also  with  No.  1033. 

1126.    Botticini,  Francesco.    Assumption  of  the  Vir- 

*  gin.    Long  attributed  to  Botticelli,  this  picture 
y^      is  now  given  to  Botticini,  who  at  present  is  one 

of  the  names  to  which  inferior  Botticellis  and 
school  pieces  are  relegated.  The  figures  grouped 
about  the  tomb  below  are  somewhat  in  Botti- 
celli's manner,  but  the  seated  angels  in  the  upper 
circles  are  by  a  more  formal  and  mannered  hand. 


BOUTS,  THIERRI  25 

It  is  a  fine  picture  in  spite  of  some  crudeness  in 
drawing,  some  sameness  in  the  types  and  the 
repeated  robes  of  the  angels.  The  sweep  of  the 
zones  of  saints  above  is  not  only  imaginative,  but 
decoratively  effective;  and  the  landscape  below, 
with  its  finely  toned  sky,  has  a  good  deal  of  breadth 
to  it.  Though  a  double  composition,  the  pic- 
ture holds  together  very  well.  It  has  been  injured 
by  restorations. 

227.    St.    Jerome    with    Saints   and   Donors.     An 

altar-piece  with  a  predella  and  in  the  centre  a  St. 
Jerome  framed  up.  It  is  in  its  original  setting 
and  is  a  decorative  work  of  some  importance. 
The  sentiment  is  a  little  dull  and  the  drawing 
rather  poor,  but  then  Botticini  seems  to  have  come 
into  existence  largely  to  father  the  badly-drawn 
Florentine  pictures  of  Botticelli's  time.  The 
angels  at  the  top  are  graceful,  and  the  predella 
has  small  but  interesting  landscapes  with  figures. 
664.  Bouts,  Thierri  (or  Dirk).  Deposition.  A  pic- 
**  ture  formerly  put  down  to  Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  but  now  given  to  Bouts.  It  has  re- 
ligious sentiment,  great  pathos,  and  the  very 
finest  of  artistic  feeling.  A  wonderful  work  for 
all  its  primitive  quality.  The  drawing  is  exact 
and  yet  superb,  the  modelling  hard  but  excellent. 
Notice  the  beautiful  white  robe  of  the  figure  in  the 
foreground — beautiful  even  in  its  sharp  breaks 
of  line.  And  what  a  group  of  heads  at  the  top! 
The  trees  and  the  landscape  are  just  as  full  of 
sentiment  as  the  figures,  and  agree  with  them  in 
tenderness.  It  is  a  superb  piece  of  colour.  The 
attribution  may  be  questioned  but  not  the  art, 
for  of  its  kind  it  is  quite  perfect.  Painted  in 
tempera  on  linen. 


26  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

943.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  Exactly  true  and  beau- 
tifully told.  The  drawing  of  the  head  and  the 
high  cheek-bones  (with  the  cap  and  dress  as  well) 
is  excellent.  It  is  broad,  not  finical.  So  also  with 
the  hands.  Quite  a  perfect  little  portrait.  Re- 
semblances to  it  appear  in  the  two  large  Bouts 
pictures  at  Brussels  (Nos.  65  and  66). 

774.    Madonna    and    Child    Enthroned.      In    the 

Memling  vein  with  types  somewhat  like  his. 
The  colours  not  quite  so  rich  as  usual,  nor  the  pat- 
terns so  elaborate;  but  a  handsome  picture.  The 
saint  at  the  right  is  Bouts-like,  but  the  draw- 
ing of  the  figures,  the  hands,  the  faces,  especially 
in  the  Madonna  and  the  Child,  are  only  super- 
ficially like  him. 

651.  Bronzino,  Angelo.  Venus,  Cupid,  Folly,  and 
Time.  This  shows  the  ending  of  the  classic  myth 
which  Botticelli,  Piero  di  Cosimo,  and  others 
carried  on  in  the  Early  Renaissance.  It  has  now 
in  the  Decadence  turned  into  absurd  allegory  with 
huddled  figures,  harsh  light,  and  acrid  colouring. 
The  actual  drawing  and  painting  seem  much 
better  than  in  the  early  men,  but  the  artistic 
sense  and  spirit  are  weak.  The  picture  has  been 
too  much  cleaned. 

1323.    Portrait    of   Piero    de'    Medici.      Showing    a 

large  head  and  hand,  both  of  them  well  done,  save 
that  they  want  force  and  character.  The  head, 
the  hand,  the  dress  are  in  fact  too  well  done — too 
pretty.  Art  with  Bronzino  became  so  refined 
that  it  lacked  grip  and  grit.  Piero  de'  Medici  had 
other  qualities  than  smoothness  and  needed  some 
stronger  hand  than  Bronzino's  to  paint  him. 


CAMPIN  27 

649.   Portrait  of  a  Boy.    A  charming  portrait  in 

pose  and  costume,  in  drawing  and  colour.  The 
boyish  portrait  did  not  call  for  great  strength, 
and  this  smooth  drawing  and  painting  fitted  it 
fairly  well.  It  has  no  force  and  the  background 
is  flat.  Is  it  Bronzino's  smooth  art?  Once  attrib- 
uted to  Pontormo.  [Now  given  to  Rossi.] 

2609.  Campin,  Robert.  Virgin  and  Child  in  an 
Apartment.  There  is  no  certainty  about  this 
attribution.  Robert  Campin  is  an  unknown 
quantity,  merely  a  name.  It  has  been  conjec- 
tured that  he  is  identical  with  the  Master  of 
Flemalle  and  he  has  been  written  down  as  Van 
der  Weyden's  master — the  latter  suggestion  be- 
ing probably  correct  and  the  former  not  unlikely. 
There  are  two  portraits  in  the  Brussels  Gallery 
ascribed  to  Campin,  but  they  look  like  old  copies 
and  hardly  agree  with  this  National  Gallery  pic- 
ture. The  history  of  the  early  painters  of  the 
Flemish  border  is  in  course  of  making.  Some 
authentic  work  of  Campin  may  turn  up  to  give 
a  criterion  by  which  one  may  judge;  but  none 
has  yet  been  discovered. 

2608.  Virgin  and  Child  with  Two  Angels.  It  be- 
longs in  the  same  category  with  No.  2609.  It 
is  an  early  or  at  least  an  immature  work,  but  the 
attribution  to  Robert  Campin  is  again  little  more 
than  a  guess. 

654.    Campin,  Robert,   School  of.     The  Magdalen. 

*  This  picture  was  formerly  assigned  to  Van  der 
Weyden.  The  same  type,  attitude,  and  dress 
appear  in  a  triptych  of  the  Crucifixion  put  down 
to  Van  der  Weyden  in  the  Antwerp  Museum  (Nos. 
393-395)— the  seated  figure  in  the  left  wing;  also  in 


28  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

Madrid  under  the  Master  of  Flemalle  (No.  1514). 
A    beautiful    Magdalen — this    London    picture — 
with  fine  quality  in  the  green  robe  for  all  its  zig- 
zags and  sharp  foldings. 
127.    Canaletto,  Giovanni  Antonio.     View  in  Ven- 

*  ice.      The    view    is   looking    across    the    Grand 
Canal  to  where  the   Academy  now  stands.     A 
picture  of  much  beauty  in  its  masses  of  light  and 
shadow  with  a  sense  of  mystery  in  the  shadow, 
as  well  as  strength  of  contrast.     An  astonishing 
piece  of  realism  in  the  buildings,  the  stone  yard, 
the  figures,  the  campanile,  the  sky.     And  what 
wonderful  truth  of  colour  under  both  light  and 
shadow!     A  superb  Canaletto! 

163.    View  on  Grand  Canal.     The   view   here   is 

across  from  the  present  railway  station.  The 
building,  the  gondolas,  the  water,  the  sky  are 
done  with  some  truth  of  fact  and  grace  of  colour, 
but  the  picture  is  marred  by  the  juvenile  attempt 
at  wave  drawing  in  the  foreground. 

937.   Scuola  di  San  Rocco.     A  fete  day  with  a 

procession  and  a  crowd.  There  is  much  local 
truth  and  beauty  of  colour,  but  it  is  more  prosaic 
than  similar  scenes  by  Guardi.  The  architec- 
ture is  beautiful  in  its  drawing.  Nos.  939  and 
940  are  more  precise  and  less  picturesque.  They 
look  like  school  work. 

965.    Cappelle,  Jan  van  de.     River  Scene  with  State 

*  Barge.     A    good    example   of    Cappelle    though 
somewhat  overdone  in  the  smoky   clouds.     The 
colour  is  mellow  and  attractive  though  that  may 
be  due  to  old  varnish.     The  ships  and  sails  are 
well  given,  especially  in  the  distance  where  air 
and  light  are  apparent.     There  are  two  points  of 


CARRACCI  29 

sight,  one  on  either  side,  but  that  does  not  seem 
disturbing. 

966.  -    — River  Scene.     Perhaps  the  best  of  the  Cap- 
*       pelles  here.    With  a  white-clouded  sky — the  lower 

clouds  a  little  smoky — and  a  good  water  effect. 
The  shadowed  foreground  is  forced  but  effective 
and  the  ships  and  sails  are  well  painted. 

967.  -    — Shipping.    With  a  high  sky  effective  in  both 
height  and  depth.     The  ships  and  sails  a  little 
blackish,   the  water  dark,   the  reflections  some- 
what pronounced.     The  figures  are  not  so  much 
figures  in  a  boat  as  a  boat  with  figures.     For  that 
reason  they  hold  their  place  well  in  the  scene. 

172.  Caravaggio,  Michelangelo.  Supper  at  Em- 
maus.  The  shadows  are  of  course  dark  and  the 

v/  characters  more  or  less  brutal  but  the  colour  is 
good.  The  drawing  and  painting  again  are 
coarse,  but  they  have  power  about  them  and  are 
at  least  forceful. 

2495.    Cariani,   Giovanni   Busi.     Virgin    and    Child. 

It  is  a  little  odd  that  Cariani,  who  has  been  gen- 
vi  erally  considered  only  fit  to  have  poor  Giorgione 
pictures  ascribed  to  him,  should  have  this  really 
good  picture  given  to  him.  It  passed  for  a  Gior- 
gione once  and  might  to-day  pass  for  an  early 
Palma  (see  the  Palma  in  the  Colonna  Gallery, 
Rome,  No.  22).  It  is  quite  good  enough  for 
Palma  and  very  much  in  his  style.  In  drawing, 
colouring,  flowers,  and  landscape  it  is  excellent. 

2923.    Carracci,   Annibale.     Pieta.     It  is  rather  fine  in 
its  drawing  and  colour,  and  the  relief  of  the  figures 
:       against  the  dark  mass  of  shadow.     The  three  fig- 
ures in  a  line  ending  in  the  dead  Christ  are  given 


30  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

with  force  and  truth.  The  limp  dead  figure  is 
excellent.  And  the  Magdalen  is  very  good  in 
pose,  in  drawing,  in  colour.  The  sentiment  of  the 
picture,  the  feature  in  which  the  Decadents  sin 
the  most,  is  here  quite  sincere.  The  scene  is 
tragic  and  given  with  a  dramatic  effect  that  is 
proper  and  right.  A  fine  picture  for  Annibale 
Carracci. 

694.    Catena,  Vincenzo.     St.  Jerome  in  His  Study. 

The  right-angle  lines  of  the  picture  are  drawn  as 
though  with  a  ruler,  and  disturb  any  picturesque 
quality  there  might  be  in  the  drawing.  St. 
Jerome  himself  is  almost  a  right-angle,  and  the 
blue  and  red  of  his  robes  are  not  only  angular  but 
articulate.  They  almost  scream.  It  is  not  a 
good  Catena  because  too  matter-of-fact  and  la- 
boured. 

234.    Warrior  Adoring  Infant   Christ.     An  impor- 

*  tant  Catena  with  large  figures  well  drawn  and 
painted.  The  warrior's  armour  is  accurate,  the 
gorgeously  trapped  horse  is  life-like,  and  the  land- 
scape is  quite  remarkable  in  the  woods  at  the  left 
and  in  the  sky.  As  for  the  spirit  of  the  Madonna, 
Child,  and  Joseph,  it  is  somewhat  dull  and  prosaic. 
Even  as  colour  spots  the  figures  are  not  inspiring. 
The  picture  shows  the  influence  of  Palma  and 
was  once  attributed  to  Giorgione.  See  the  note 
on  the  Louvre  Giorgione,  No.  1136.  A  picture 
hanging  near  this  Catena  in  the  National  Gallery 
(1912),  loaned  by  Mr.  John  P.  Heseltine,  and 
ascribed  to  Palma  Vecchio,  is  another  very  obvious 
Catena  with  the  same  types,  landscape,  trees, 
and  colours  as  No.  234. 


CHRISTUS  31 

1121.    Portrait   of  a    Young  Man.     It  has   a  Bel- 

linesque  look  about  it,  though  smoother  and 
rounder  in  contours  than  Bellini  usually  gave.  The 
figure  is  flat,  the  outline  sharp,  the  sky  filled  with 
puff-ball  clouds.  There  is  little  doubt  of  its  being 
by  Catena. 

Cavazzola.     See  Morando  (Paolo). 

2485.  Cesare  da  Sesto.  Salome.  In  the  smooth 
*  style  adopted  by  many  of  Leonardo's  followers 
and  with  Leonardo's  and  Raphael's  sentiment 
prettified  and  sweetened.  It  is  good  in  both 
colour  and  drawing,  and  even  the  light  and 
shade  of  Leonardo  is  handled  with  Raphaelesque 
moderation.  The  Salome's  hands  and  arms  are 
well  drawn  and  the  drapery  is  handsomely  dis- 
posed. 

2593.    Christus,    Petrus.     Portrait   of   a    Man.    The 

head  is  the  poorest  part  of  it,  being  somewhat 
wooden.  The  hands  and  the  dress  are  better 
and  the  architecture  with  the  glimpse  of  land- 
scape at  the  side  is  perhaps  the  best  of  all.  The 
illuminated  sheet  of  vellum  on  the  wall  is  a  little 
spotty.  The  attribution  is  questionable.  There 
is  little  known  about  Christus  or  his  art,  and  what 
is  known  rather  conflicts  with  this  portrait.  He 
is  supposed  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Jan  van  Eyck, 
and  to  have  been  influenced  by  Bouts,  but  that 
is  a  mere  conjecture. 

696.  Portrait  of  Marco  Barbarigo.  This  por- 
trait is  more  closely  related  to  the  Van  Eycks 
Nos.  290  and  222  than  to  the  Christus  No.  2593. 
It  is  a  strong  little  portrait  of  the  School  of  Van 
Eyck,  which  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  it 


32  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

must  have  been  done  by  Christus.  It  is  quite 
different  from  No.  2593  put  down  to  him.  Com- 
pare closely  the  drawing  of  contours,  eyes,  noses, 
mouths  (not  for  likeness  of  type  but  of  drawing) 
in  Nos.  696,  290,  222,  and  186.  They  will  be 
found  to  agree  in  a  general  way;  but  when  these 
are  contrasted  with  the  Christus  No.  2593,  this 
latter  will  be  found  to  conflict  with  them. 

300.  Cima,  Giovanni  Battista.  Infant  Christ 
Standing  on  the  Knees  of  the  Virgin.  The  fig- 
ures are  cold  in  colour  and  hard,  almost  glassy,  in 
texture.  The  landscape  is  better.  Another  ver- 
sion of  this  is  at  Berlin,  but  neither  of  them  is  of 
the  best  Cima  quality. 

816.  Incredulity  of  St.  Thomas.  A  large  altar-piece 

with  a  fine  group  of  figures  in  the  foreground  and 
a  good  landscape  seen  at  the  back.  The  upper 
part  of  the  picture  seems  empty,  and  that  is  prob- 
ably due  to  something  wanting  where  the  grey- 
brown  wall  now  shows — something  that  was  never 
put  in  or  that  was  afterwards  painted  out.  It 
seems  improbable  that  a  painter  in  colourful  Ven- 
ice in  Cima's  time  would  have  utilised  any  such 
space  with  a  mere  filling-in  of  flat  tint — grey- 
brown  paint  at  that.  The  picture  wants  in  com- 
pleteness, and  the  want  is  a  crying  one  that  any 
person  can  hear.  Injured  by  restorations. 

2505.  David  and  Jonathan.  Two  figures  perhaps  too 

mature  in  drawing,  colouring,  and  painting  for 
Cima.  But  they  are  his  types,  and  the  landscape 
is  also  his.  The  figures  move  well  and  are  certainly 
effective  as  colour.  The  picture  has  much  charm. 

1120.  St.  Jerome  in  the  Desert.  Compare  it  with 

the  Basaiti  (No.  281)  of  the  same  subject,  hanging 


CLAUDE  LORRAINE  33 

near  at  hand.  The  pictures  are  apparently  not 
far  apart.  Even  the  tree  and  bird  which  are  more 
characteristic  of  Basaiti  than  of  Cima  are  in  both 
pictures. 

565.    Cimabue,     Giovanni.     Madonna     and    Child 

Enthroned  with  Angels.     A  more  advanced  work 

.  technically  than  the  work  usually  put  down  to 

^Cimabue.     The  drawing  in  the  lower  angels  is 

a  little  too  learned  for  so  early  a  man,  and  the 

colour  is  also  too  refined.     Restorations  may  have 

modernised  it  somewhat.     Note  the  large  lines 

of  the  Madonna's  robe  and  the  handsome  colours 

of  the  angels. 

14.  Claude  Lorraine.  Embarkation  of  Queen  of 
*  Sheba.  This  is  the  Claude  picture  that  Turner 

v  chose  to  put  himself  in  competition  with.  Tur- 
ner's example  hangs  near-by  and  is  much  more  cun- 
ning and  fuller  of  artifice  than  the  Claude;  but 
the  latter  holds  its  own  in  purity,  simplicity,  and 
serenity.  The  Turner  is  more  splendid,  more 
dramatic,  more  hectic  where  the  Claude  is  restful 
and  self-restrained.  A  very  fine  picture  with  a 
good  sea  and  sky  and  finely  proportioned  archi- 
tecture. 

19.  Narcissus  and  Echo.  A  serene  and  well- 
poised  picture  with  much  of  sunset  charm  about 
it — the  same  sunlight  effect  that  Corot  long  after- 
wards loved  to  paint. 

30.  Embarkation  of  St.  Ursula.  A  seaport  pic- 
ture with  well-drawn  waves,  lofty  architecture, 
and  a  remarkable  tree  at  the  right.  In  Claude's 
best  and  freest  manner,  though  a  little  hot  in 
colour. 


34  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

1018.    Classical    Landscape.     A    grey-blue    Claude 

with  good  atmosphere.  The  architecture  again 
quite  fine,  but  the  composition  hurt  by  the  tree 
in  the  centre.  The  shadows  of  the  foreground 
are  luminous  and  the  sky  has  depth  and  height. 

2603.  Cleve,  Juste  van  der  Beke  van  (Master  of  the 
Death  of  the  Virgin).  Holy  Family.  An  ac- 
curate work  with  much  beauty  of  detail  in  the 
borders  of  robes,  jewels,  and  still-life.  The  colour 
also  is  very  good.  Notice  the  type  of  Joseph.  The 
attribution  may  be  questioned  but  it  is  probably 
correct.  See  Notes  on  Munich  Gallery  under 
"Cleve." 

11141  Coques,  Gonzales.  The  Five  Senses.  A  group 
1118/  of  pictures  that  shows  easy  painting  and  loose, 
uncertain  drawing.  Look  at  the  hands  for  the 
careless  drawing  and  the  hair  for  the  easy  brush 
work.  No.  1116  is  perhaps  as  good  as  any  of 
the  group. 

10.    Correggio,  Antonio  Allegri  da.     Mercury  In- 
structing    Cupid    in     the    Presence    of    Venus. 

It  is  a  graceful  group  forming  masses  of  light 
flesh  colour  against  a  dark  wood  background — a 
method  of  relief  much  employed  by  Correggio. 
The  figures  are  fairly  well  drawn  and  the  Venus 
is  graceful  in  outline.  The  Mercury  is  less  satis- 
factory. The  colour  is  now  dulled  but  is  still 
agreeable.  The  whole  surface  has  been  hurt  by 
cleaning  and  old  repainting.  The  modelling  in, 
places  is  wrecked,  as,  for  example,  in  the  left  hand 
and  wrist  of  the  Venus — a  Venus  that  is  here  por- 
trayed with  wings.  The  originality  of  the  picture 
has  been  contested,  but  it  has  not  the  appearance 
of  a  copy. 


COSSA  35 

15.  Ecce  Homo.  This  is  exactly  the  kind  of 

subject  Correggio  could  not  paint.  He  had  no 
sympathy  with  sorrow,  suffering,  or  tragedy,  but 
was  decidedly  a  painter  of  joyous  life.  This 

^  picture  is  mannered  in  the  hands  and  common- 
place in  the  type.  The  surface  is  porcelain-like 
(which  latter  defect  may  perhaps  be  laid  to  the 
restorers  who  have  repainted  it);  the  sentiment 
is  weak  and  not  altogether  sincere.  There  are 
several  versions  of  the  picture. 

23.    Madonna  of  the  Basket.     It  is  sweet  in  both 

type  and  sentiment  and  the  colour  is  of  corre- 
sponding quality.  Probably  it  was  once  freely 
and  easily  painted  but  it  is  now  too  much  cleaned 
for  this  to  appear. 

>12.  The  Magdalen.  Of  the  "Reading  Mag- 
dalen" type  with  the  same  prettiness  about  it. 
The  hands  are  abnormal  in  size.  It  has  been 
cleaned  and  tampered  with  in  the  hair  and  else- 
where, but  probably  was  at  no  time  of  importance 
as  art.  Look  at  the  badly  done  arabesque  of  leaves 
about  the  book.  One  might  question  Correggio's 
having  done  any  part  of  it. 

>97.  Cossa,  Francesco  del.  St.  Hyacinth.  Cossa 
was  a  Ferrarese  painter,  influenced  perhaps  by 
Mantegna  and  almost  certainly  by  his  contem- 
porary, Cosima  Tura.  But  the  Ferrarese  man- 
nerisms are  somewhat  softened  here.  The  com- 
position is  like  Tura's  in  putting  figures  at  the 
top  and  bottom  to  help  out  the  large  central 
figure.  Notice  the  movement  of  the  little  figures 
at  the  back  and  the  angels  at  the  top.  They  are 
more  graceful  than  Tura's  work.  What  quality 
in  the  black  and  white  of  the  saint's  robe!  And 


36  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

what  remarkable  detail  in  such  things  as  the 
beads! 

629.  Costa,  Lorenzo.  Madonna  Enthroned  with 
Angels.  As  a  composition,  it  has  too  many 
waste  spaces  in  it  to  be  altogether  satisfactory, 
but  it  has  good  colour  and  the  landscape  is 
spacious.  It  should  be  an  early  work,  for  Costa's 
landscapes  at  Bologna  (St.  Cecilia  Chapel)  go  far 
beyond  this  in  maturity  and  resource.  The  senti- 
ment is  good,  especially  in  the  angels.  Notice 
the  fat  little  legs  and  arms  of  the  playing  angels 
below  the  pretty  view  of  the  sea.  Somewhat 
injured. 

2083.  Battista  Fiera  of  Mantua.  A  sad,  serious- 
looking  sitter  with  emphasised  warts  on  the  cheek. 
It  is  well  done,  with  some  force  of  drawing  and 
much  sobriety  of  colour;  but  it  is  hardly  inspired. 

1925.    Cranach  the  Elder,  Lucas.    Portrait  of  a  Man. 

An  excellent  portrait  of  the  Martin  Luther  type, 
only  more  freely  done  than  Cranach's  Luther  and 
artistically  a  more  mature  work.  How  well  the 
bulk  of  the  head  is  given!  It  is  almost  worthy  of 
Holbein. 

291.   Portrait    of    a    Lady.     An    attractive    and 

graceful  presentation  of  a  rather  pretty  type. 
,j  Notice  how  the  painter  has  repeated  the  oval  of 
the  face  in  the  oval  of  the  bust  by  using  the  dress 
with  its  flowing  lines  as  an  arabesque.  Very 
handsome  also  in  colour. 

593.    Credi,  Lorenzo   di.     Madonna  and  Child.     In 

a  cold,  metallic,  vein,  with  everything  as  hard  as 
tin  (hair  and  flowers  included),  but  with  some 
tender  sentiment.  The  blues  are  repellent  whereas 


CREDI  37 

the  architecture  and   background  are   distinctly 
attractive. 

-Madonna    Adoring    Child.      A    trifle    warmer 


in  tone  than  No.  593  and  perhaps  not  so  brittle 
in  its  surface  qualities.  The  contours  are  agree- 
able but  hard — in  the  landscape  as  well  as  in  the 
figures. 

-  —  Costanza  de'  Medici.  What  a  beautiful 
panel  of  colour — lilac  and  blue-grey  colour!  It  is 
so  interesting  in  hue  that  perhaps  we  lose  sight 
of  its  excellence  as  portraiture.  What  a  vision 
of  the  past  it  is,  with  that  wonderful  Florentine 
face  and  that  strange,  interested  look  coming  from 
the  oddest  eyes  ever  put  in  a  woman's  head !  And 
will  you  look  for  a  moment  at  the  beautiful  ill- 
drawn  hands  holding  faded  flowers,  and  near 
them  gems  and  baubles  that  long  since  went  their 
way  into  the  melting  pot.  All  has  faded  but  the 
art  of  it.  What  a  gem,  a  bauble  of  art  it  remains 
to  this  day!  Notice  that  the  flowers  and  jewels 
have  faded  like  the  flesh  and  the  gown;  but 
beautiful  colour  remains,  and  also  the  wonderful 
modulations  in  the  modelling  of  the  face  and 
figure.  In  tempera  on  a  gesso  ground.  The 
attribution  very  questionable.  Lorenzo  di  Credi 
had  no  such  penetration  or  subtle  refinement  as 
is  shown  here.  Mr.  Berenson's  attribution  to 
Ghirlandajo  is  hardly  satisfactory  either.  When 
and  where  did  Ghirlandajo  do  such  drawing  as 
this,  or  exhibit  such  a  sensitive  and  poetic  spirit? 
The  picture  does  not  point  directly  to  any  well- 
known  master,  but  was  possibly  painted  by  the 
painter  of  the  portrait  No.  80  in  the  Berlin  Gallery, 
there  attributed  to  the  workshop  of  Verrocchio. 


38  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

788.  Crivelli,  Carlo.  Madonna  and  Child  with 
**  Saints.  A  large  altar-piece  of  great  decorative 
beauty,  in  thirteen  compartments.  Those  who 
can  see  in  Crivelli  only  a  stringy  and  withered 
type,  with  morose  sentiment  and  an  unpleasant 
expression  of  face,  are  very  apt  to  overlook  the 
significance  of  his  pictures  as  decoration  and 
church  ornament.  This  altar-piece  shows  what  a 
wonderful  decorative  artist  he  really  was.  Aside 
from  what  any  of  the  figures  mean,  how  superbly 
all  of  them  look!  What  a  noble  altar-piece  taken 
as  a  whole!  Each  and  every  compartment  taken 
by  itself  is  a  wonder  of  skilful  drawing,  pattern- 
ing, designing,  painting.  Look  at  the  beauty  of 
the  Madonna's  robes  or  those  of  the  St.  Catherine 
at  her  right  or  St.  Peter  in  his  church  vestments 
at  her  left.  What  ornate  jewelling  and  gilded 
stucco  relief!  What  beautiful  designs  in  the 
gilded  backgrounds !  At  the  top,  notice  the  love- 
liness of  the  two  saints  just  over  the  baldacchino. 
Raphael  and  Titian  did  things  more  significant, 
more  expressive  than  this,  but  never  anything 
more  supremely  decorative.  Painted  in  tempera, 
like  all  of  Crivelli's  pictures,  which  may  account 
for  its  wonderful  brilliancy — its  well-preserved 
colours. 

739.    Annunciation.     As  simple  decoration,  there 

**  are  few  pictures  finer  than  this.  The  architectural 
friezes,  the  doors,  arches,  and  balconies  with  their 
perfect  proportions  and  rich  reliefs,  will  all  bear 
careful  study.  In  colour,  what  could  be  finer  than 
the  peacock,  the  rug,  the  splendid  costume 
the  bedspread,  the  curtain,  the  ceiling  ?  Noti< 
the  quite  perfect  perspective,  the  garden  at 
back,  the  wonderful  arch  with  its  coloured 


CRIVELLI  39 

bles  and  its  balcony  with  figures,  the  beautiful 
sky  which  is  perhaps  distorted  to  make  good  deco- 
ration, the  high  walls  in  perfect  light  and  shade 
that  reach  up  to  the  sky,  the  white  pigeons.  How 
true  and  yet  how  rich  and  splendid  it  all  is  I  The 
truth  is  gilded,  gemmed,  brightened,  ornamented 
to  the  last  degree,  but  with  perfect  taste,  so  that 
nothing  offends  and  everything  attracts.  And  is 
the  picture  not  beautiful  also  as  expression,  as 
shown  in  the  Madonna,  the  kneeling  angel,  the 
patron  saint,  even  the  little  child  on  the  steps? 
It  is  a  superb  picture. 

24.    Madonna    and    Child    Enthroned    with    St. 

**  Jerome  and  St.  Sebastian.  A  picture  made 
v/  up  of  marbles,  rich  stuffs,  gold  brocades,  crowns, 
jewels,  fruits,  brilliant  flowers,  gildings  and  carv- 
ings all  of  them  brought  together  in  an  arabesque 
or  pattern  showing  the  Madonna  with  saints  in 
the  centre.  After  all,  that  is  the  first  and  per- 
haps best  mission  of  art — to  show  something  beau- 
tiful to  sensitive  eyes.  And  has  not  Crivelli  done 
that  here?  Never  mind  who  the  saints  are  or 
what  they  are  doing  or  whether  they  have  angel 
faces  or  not.  The  Madonna's  robe,  the  stuffs 
hanging  from  the  wall,  the  variegated  marbles, 
the  flowers  and  fruits  are  beautiful  enough  to 
make  a  picture  all  by  themselves.  And  you  have 
not  yet  seen  all  the  beauty  that  lies  in  the  pre- 
della  beneath.  Note  the  colour  of  the  St.  Cath- 
erine, the  excellent  linear  drawing  of  the  St.  Se- 
bastian, the  fine  landscapes,  the  lovely  scheme 
of  light.  Even  the  coat  of  arms  at  the  bottom  is 
beautiful. 

06.    Madonna   in   Ecstasy.      It   lacks   the   colour 

*      and  richness  of  No.  724,  but  is  just  as  carefully 


40  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

done,  just  as  minutely  wrought  and  brought  to 
perfection,  as  you  may  see  by  studying  the  Vir- 
gin's robe  or  the  vase  of  flowers  at  the  left,  or  the 
marbles. 

807.  Madonna  and  Child  with  St.  Francis  and 

St.  Sebastian.  This  altar-piece  and  No.  668 

•s/  are  by  no  means  inferior  Crivellis,  though  they 
are  paled  somewhat  by  the  altar-pieces  of  this 
painter  hanging  on  the  opposite  wall.  But  the 
decorative  quality  is  positive  enough  anywhere 
in  Crivelli.  See  the  stuff  at  the  back  of  the  throne, 
the  red  and  green  robe  of  the  Madonna,  the  col- 
oured marbles,  the  fruit  and  flowers.  You  dislike 
Crivelli's  types,  perhaps,  but  what  have  you  to 
say  about  this  charming  little  Madonna  clasping 
her  Child  so  tenderly,  or  that  superbly  drawn  St. 
Sebastian?  Are  they  not  beautiful  as  types  and 
just  as  beautiful  in  their  sincerity  of  spirit?  You 
will  visit  many  galleries  and  churches  and  see 
many  miles  of  pictures  before  you  meet  again  such 
truly  decorative  art  as  is  shown  in  the  Crivellis 
of  this  National  Gallery. 

960.  Cuyp,  Aelbert.     The  Wind  Mills.     Perhaps  this 

*  is  as  good  as  any  of  the  Cuyps  here,  in  tone,  light 
and  air.     It  has  been  much  cleaned  and  possibly 
the  tone  of  it  is  the  better  therefor.     The  sky  is  a 
little  flat,  but  in  perfect  colour-accord  with  the 
earth. 

961.    Cattle   and   Figures.      The    largest    of    the 

*  Cuyps  here  shown.     It  has  an  effective  sunset, 
N     and  the  light  and  shade  of  the  foreground  in  the 

cattle  and  figures  are  striking.  Notice  the  good 
atmospheric  effect.  There  are  smaller  repetitions 
of  the  same  light  and  air  near  at  hand  in  Nos.  962, 


DAVID  41 

822,  and  53.  The  group  of  Cuyp  pictures  in  this 
gallery  is  unequalled  anywhere.  They  are  excel- 
lent works  and  show  Cuyp  to  great  advantage. 

Cattle  with  Herdsman.  An  excellent  pic- 
ture in  colour  and  light.  The  group  of  cattle  is 
given  with  remarkable  truth  of  values.  They 
are  well  bunched  and  thoroughly  well  drawn  in 
a  large,  naturalistic  way.  There  is  truth  of  life 
about  the  group.  A  small  Cuyp,  but  one  of  the 
best  in  the  gallery. 

David,  Gerard.  A  Canon  and  His  Patron 
Saints.  The  figures  are  of  much  excellence,  with 
robes  of  beautiful  patterns,  and  faces  of  char- 
acter and  force.  The  patrons  are  wearing  rich 
velvets  and  brocades  that  fall,  not  in  little  broken 
lines,  but  full  and  free.  What  a  fine  head  that 
of  the  kneeling  figure!  A  remarkable  forest  at 
the  back.  Mark  the  depth  of  it.  Modern  crit- 
icism has  constructed  a  hodge-podge  of  eclecti- 
cism and  called  it  David,  but  such  pictures  as 
this  bespeak  a  decided  individuality. 


32.  -  — Mystic  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine.  Here 
*  is  great  splendour  of  effect  got  from  rich  costumes, 
brocade  patterns,  jewels,  tiles,  marbles,  and  the 
like.  What  sumptuous  garments  for  the  bride! 
And  what  a  crown  upon  her  head !  Note  also  the 
head-dress  of  the  saint  at  the  right,  the  brocade 
back  of  the  chair,  the  flowers,  the  floor.  And 
what  types!  The  strong  face  of  the  donor  (with 
his  prayerful  hands)  is  not  more  wonderful  than 
the  lovely  face  of  St.  Catherine  (with  her  open 
palms).  A  brilliant  picture,  but  unfortunately 
a  little  hurt  by  cleaning. 


42  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

1234.  Dossi,  Dosso  (Giovanni  Lutero).  Muse  In- 
spiring a  Court  Poet.  It  may  be  questioned  if 
either  the  painter  or  the  subject  is  rightly  named; 
but  the  picture  has  considerable  merit  in  light 
and  shade,  in  colour,  and  in  drawing.  It  has  a 
Ferrarese  look  in  the  shadows  and  the  colour,  but 
that  may  be  superficial.  It  is  a  very  good  picture. 

1140.  Duccio  di  Buoninsegna.  Christ  Healing  the 
Blind.  A  fair  example  of  this  early  Sienese  mas- 
ter, showing  the  old  Byzantine  types  changed 
and  enlivened.  The  drapery  is  free  from  gold 
lines  of  high  light,  the  figure  is  still  sack-like,  the 
feet  and  hands  are  wanting  in  exact  drawing,  the 
colour  is  largely  local  tones  broken  by  light  and 
shade,  the  buildings  are  somewhat  crude  in  draw- 
ing, the  sky  gilded,  the  flesh  shadows  still  greenish. 
But  there  is  light,  perspective,  some  action,  and 
good  grouping. 

566.    Madonna,  Child,  and  Angels.     Quite  in  the 

Byzantine  style,  with  the  long  nose,  the  slit  eyes, 
small  mouth,  greenish  flesh,  and  gold  ground;  but 
with  some  slight  animation  in  the  angels  and  in 
the  figures  in  the  wings.  It  may  be  by  some  one 
in  Duccio's  school.  The  drawing  of  the  larger 
heads  from  the  apex  to  the  forehead  is  quite  dif- 
ferent from  Nos.  1140  and  1330.  The  draperies 
also  are  slightly  different.  There  is  fine  colour  in 
the  saint  at  the  right. 

1330.    The  Transfiguration.     In  Duccio's  style  with 

gilded  high  lights  in  the  central  figure.  Notice 
the  face  of  this  figure  for  the  growth  in  animation. 
See  also  No.  1139.  Duccio's  best  works  are  to  be 
seen  in  the  Opera  del  Duomo,  Siena. 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  43 

1938.  Diirer,  Albrecht.  Portrait  of  the  Painter's 
Father.  With  much  small  accuracy  in  the  draw- 
y^  ing.  The  lines  waver  in  the  outline  of  the  coat 
as  in  the  face.  There  has  been  much  dispute  as 
to  whether  this  is  an  original  work  or  not.  See  the 
Burlington  Magazine  for  August  and  September, 
1904.  It  bears  little  resemblance  in  technique 
to  Diirer's  other  work,  is  done  with  some  ti- 
midity in  the  hair,  face,  and  dress,  and  is  bad  in  the 
fingers.  The  shadow  on  the  cheek  is  mere  brown 
paint;  and  the  work  is  fumbled  in  the  black  lin- 
ing of  the  coat.  Notice  also  how  the  ground  comes 
forward  and  encloses  the  figure.  It  has  the  flat 
look  of  a  copy. 

1652.  Dutch  School.  Portrait  of  Madame  van  der 
Goes.  Not  a  bad  portrait;  with  a  something 
about  it  that  suggests  Heemskerck  as  its  possible 
painter. 

52.  Dyck,  Anthony  van.  Portrait  of  Cornelius  van 
**  der  Geest.  In  some  respects  there  never  was  a  finer 
nobler  portrait  than  this.  It  is  about  the  last 
YV  word  in  pigment  so  far  as  truthful  characteriza- 
tion and  technique  go.  The  type  is  a  gentleman, 
a  scholar,  with  tired  eyes,  and  a  face  somewhat 
worn  by  thought.  The  hair  is  scant,  the  fore- 
head superb  in  the  modelling  of  the  skull,  the 
eyebrows  faultless,  and  the  eyes  perhaps  as  per- 
fect as  any  ever  painted.  The  eyes  are  indeed 
masterful  in  their  drawing.  And  what  a  beau- 
tifully drawn  nose  and  mouth  with  the  little 
moustache  and  the  pointed  beard!  Notice  the 
cheek  bones  and  the  foreshortening  from  ear  to 
chin.  And  finally  the  quite  perfect  ruff.  Stand 
back  and  look  at  the  portrait  from  a  distance. 


44  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

You  will  never  look  upon  its  like  again  in  the 
Flemish  school.  Van  Dyck  hardly  reached  up 
to  it  a  second  time.  It  is  a  supreme  head 
that  places  him  among  the  immortals.  Titian 
did  nobler  things,  Velasquez  did  broader  things, 
Leonardo  did  subtler  things,  but  none  of  them 
ever  did  a  surer  and  better  piece  of  drawing  and 
painting  than  this.  It  has  been  doubted  if  Van 
Dyck  did  it — if  he  were  able  to  do  it.  But  it  is 
his  workmanship,  all  except  the  dress.  The  head 
and  ruff  are  painted  on  wood.  The  black  coat  is 
probably  painted  on  canvas  by  a  feebler  and 
smoother  hand.  A  masterpiece  the  technical  value 
of  which  would  be  hard  to  exaggerate. 

2127.    Portrait    of    II    Marchese    Cattaneo.     After 

the  wonderful  Van  der  Geest  portrait  (No.  52), 
this  Cattaneo  portrait  seems  a  swift  descent.  It 
is  probably  by  Van  Dyck,  but  some  years  ago  the 
whole  picture  was  repainted,  and  since  then  it 
has  been  cleaned  and  the  painting  rubbed  and 
flattened  down.  At  least,  that  is  its  present  ap- 
pearance. There  are  few  brush  strokes  of  Van 
Dyck  now  apparent  in  it,  though  doubtless  he 
is  somewhere  under  its  surface. 

2144.    Portrait    of    La    Marchesa    Cattaneo.     This 

is  a  companion  picture  to  No.  2127,  and  has 
suffered  a  similar  but  possibly  not  so  severe  a 
*)\^  fate.  The  repainting,  however,  is  very  obvious 
in  the  face,  the  now  spotty  ruff,  the  chain,  and  the 
hand.  Both  portraits  are  supposed  to  have  been 
done  during  what  is  called  Van  Dyck's  "  Genoese 
period,"  but  at  no  period  in  his  career  did  he  con- 
coct gritty,  mortar-like  pigments  or  plaster  them 
on  the  canvas  as  with  a  trowel.  In  Italy  he  fol- 


EYCK,  JAN  VAN  45 

lowed  such  Venetian  painters  as  Titian,  but  what 
Venetian  ever  produced  such  a  surface  as  this? 
It  is  largely  the  surface  of  some  restorer,  flat- 
tened by  continual  rubbing  with  that  diabolical 
ball  of  cotton. 

172.  -  — Equestrian  Portrait  of  Charles  I.  It  is  large, 
official,  and  possibly  regal,  but  deadly  dull,  flat, 
uninteresting.  Van  Dyck  is  spread  out  entirely 
X  too  thin  on  this  canvas.  It  lacks  force,  light, 
colour,  quality.  The  King  rides  fairly  well,  the 
horse  arches  his  neck  and  plays  his  part,  the  trees 
droop  majestically,  and  even  the  sky  puts  on  an 
heroic  stare;  but  the  picture  carries  no  convic- 
tion. We  cannot  believe  it.  There  is  too  much 
pretence  about  it.  How  very  different  from  the 
quiet  Charles  standing  beside  his  horse  in  the 
Louvre  (No.  1967) — the  best  portrait  of  the  King 
ever  painted,  and  one  of  the  best  picture-portraits 
in  existence! 

186.  Eyck,  Jan  van.  John  Arnolfini  of  Lucca  and 
***  His  Wife.  A  celebrated  Van  Eyck  with  mar- 
w  vellous  portraits,  not  only  of  the  man  and  his 
wife,  but  of  the  entire  contents  of  the  room. 
Everything  is  wrought  with  minute  skill  to  a 
perfection  that  cannot  be  criticised  or  questioned. 
Even  the  mirror  on  the  wall  reflects  the  backs  of 
the  standing  figures,  with  the  other  figures  in  the 
room.  The  detail  is  microscopic — in  the  chan- 
delier with  its  one  lighted  candle,  the  beads  on 
the  wall,  the  window,  the  fruit,  the  fur  of  the 
coats,  the  white  linen.  And  what  is  so  very  sin- 
gular, this  microscopic  rendering  does  not  hurt 
the  breadth  of  the  figures  or  make  the  work  look 
finical  or  fussy.  It  is  all  very  simple,  honest,  and 


46  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

true.  And  what  splendid  depths  of  colour  in  the 
stuffs!  Hubert  van  Eyck  is  insistently  supposed 
to  be  a  better  painter  than  Jan,  but  how  could  he 
have  bettered  this  picture?  . 

222.  A  Man's  Portrait.  Excellent  in  every  way, 

*  but  perhaps  rather  dimmed  by  the  nearness  of  the 

V  painter's  more  celebrated  picture — the  Arnolfini 
portraits.  It  is  a  strong  face,  skilfully  and  in- 
telligently portrayed. 

290.  Man's  Portrait.  A  forceful  head  with  a 

heavy  nose,  a  red  face,  and  a  well-drawn  hand. 
How  truly  the  green  and  red  of  the  head-dress 
harmonise  and  how  their  strength  supplements 
and  adds  to  the  face!  It  may  not  be  by  Jan 
van  Eyck,  but  no  matter;  it  is  excellent  por- 
traiture. 

1465.  Ferrari,  Gaudenzio.  Christ  Rising  from  the 
Tomb.  The  smoothness  and  prettiness  of  the 
Lombard  work,  following  Leonardo,  is  here  ap- 
parent once  more.  The  figure  of  Christ  is  too 
porcelain-like  and  the  face  too  effeminate.  Even 
the  tomb  has  no  rugged  quality  about  it  and  the 
distant  mountains  seem  as  soft  as  sea  waves. 
The  things  that  should  be  soft,  such  as  the  ban- 
ner and  the  drapery,  are  really  hard.  And  how 
academic  that  swirl  of  white  about  the  figure! 
Gaudenzio  did  better  work  than  this. 

2483.    Fiorenzo   di   Lorenzo.     Virgin   and  Child.     A 

*  charming  little  panel  probably  in  its  original 
frame  and  making  a  very  handsome  colour  pattern. 
It  is  an  Umbro-Florentine  Madonna  with  no 
excessive  Umbrian  sentiment  about  her.  The 
robes  are  rich  and  well-drawn.  And  what  a 
beautiful  rope  of  flowers  across  the  topi  What 


FLEMISH  SCHOOL  47 

a  red-and-gold  parapet  below!  It  is  more  Flor- 
entine than  Umbrian,  though  Pinturicchio's  land- 
scape seems  foreshadowed  in  the  background. 
The  attribution  is  not  entirely  satisfying. 

103.  Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo,  School  of.  Virgin  and 
Child  with  Angels.  A  triptych  of  more  im- 
portance perhaps  than  No.  2483,  but  less  interest- 
ing, less  charming.  Here,  too,  the  attribution  is 
questionable. 

264.  Flemish  School,  15th  Century.  A  Count  of 
Henegau.  What  a  beautiful  piece  of  colour! 
And  what  beautiful  patterns  of  cloth  and  won- 
derful jewels!  The  head  at  the  top  is  superb. 
Perhaps  more  French  than  Flemish,  or  at  least 
on  the  border  line. 

783.  Exhumation  of  St.  Hubert.  A  crowd — a 

*  real  crowd — is  gathered  about  the  body  of  the 
saint.  The  crowd  has  been  kept  back,  kept  out, 
but  you  can  see  people  in  the  rear  pressing  their 
faces  against  the  railing  to  get  a  glimpse  of  what 
is  going  on.  A  picture  well  conceived  as  regards 
space  within  the  church  and  very  well  wrought 
in  architecture,  figures,  crowns,  robes,  brass  work. 
Notice  the  Byzantine  gold  shrine  on  the  altar  and 
the  brocades  of  the  figures  in  the  foreground. 
The  picture  bears  some  resemblance  in  subject 
and  method  to  the  Raising  of  Lazarus  (No.  532A) 
by  Ouwater  in  the  Berlin  Gallery. 

036.  Flemish  School.  A  Man's  Portrait.  With 
one  hand  upon  a  skull  and  the  other  holding  a 
pansy.  A  very  good  portrait  with  well-drawn 
face  and  hands.  Attributed  to  Amberger  and  the 
Master  of  Oultremont.  Also  given  to  the  Master 
of  the  Death  of  the  Virgin. 


48  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

1081.    Portrait  of  a   Man   in    Prayer.     This    is   the 

portrait  of  some  donor  and  doubtless  belonged 
originally  to  an  altar-piece.  The  work  is  very 
well  done  and  the  landscape  is  most  attractive. 

947.   A    Man's   Portrait.    It  is   a   smooth   affair 

with  a  half-French  look  about  it.  The  left  hand 
is  badly  done  but  the  face  is  interesting.  Some- 
what too  much  rubbed. 

729.    Foppa,     Vincenzo.      Adoration    of     Kings.      A 

*  fine  example  of  Foppa,  with  much  splendour  of 
,  effect  in  the  gold  and  colour  of  the  figures  in  the 
foreground  and  a  beautiful  lake  and  landscape 
at  the  back.  Notice  the  magnificent  robe  of  the 
kneeling  king,  the  head-dresses,  the  richly  col- 
oured architecture,  the  fine  morning  sky.  The 
colour,  the  shadows,  the  light,  the  depth,  the  air 
make  up  a  very  rich  panel. 

665.    Francesca,   Piero    della.    Baptism   of   Christ. 

For  the  peculiar  whitish  appearance  of  this  pic- 
X  ture,  several  reasons  may  be  offered.  It  may 
not  have  been  completed  by  the  painter,  which  is 
unlikely.  It  may  have  changed  in  colour.  The 
painting  is  in  tempera,  though  why  or  how  that 
should  change  its  colour  is  not  apparent.  Tem- 
pera usually  preserves  colours  better  than  oils. 
It  may  be  an  early  attempt  to  show  an  effect  of 
blinding  white  sunlight  such  as  one  sees  to  this 
day  in  and  about  the  hills  of  Borgo  San  Sepolcro. 
The  landscape  and  sky  are  finished  and  are  won- 
derful in  every  way.  The  colour  of  the  picture, 
just  as  it  is,  is  perhaps  the  most  striking  feature 
of  all.  The  figures  at  the  left  are  superb  in  reds, 
blues,  and  whites,  as  are  also  the  figures  at  the 
back  with  their  colourings  reflected  in  the  water. 


FRANCESCA  49 

Note  also  that  the  mountain  is  seen  in  reflection. 
And  what  luminous  yet  delicate  colour  in  the  aerial 
envelope!  The  firm  drawing  of  Piero  shows  in 
the  figures.  They  stand  well,  with  their  feet 
solidly  upon  the  ground,  and  they  carry  them- 
selves with  dignity.  The  drawing  of  the  back 
of  the  man  pulling  off  his  shirt  shows  study  from 
the  nude  model  and  recalls  Masolino  at  Cas- 
tiglione  d'Olona.  The  figure  of  Christ  again 
shows  this  early  study  of  the  nude.  The  light 
and  colour  apparent  in  the  figures  as  well  as  in  the 
landscape  are  astonishing.  It  is  a  picture  to  be 
studied. 

908.  Nativity.  It  is  of  the  same  general  tech- 
nical character  as  No.  665,  with  colours  that  may 
have  changed  or  faded  and  yet  may  be  very  much 
as  the  painter  left  them.  Like  No.  665,  it  is 
painted  in  tempera  and  may  be  one  of  the  earli- 
est Italian  attempts  at  portraying  white  light. 
The  Madonna  is  beautifully  drawn  with  the  dress 
in  front  dragged  down  and  under  the  knees. 
The  angel  choir  is  excellent  in  movement,  and 
they  all  stand  well.  What  a  beautiful  harmony 
of  blues  and  whites — a  perfect  harmony!  The 
colour  extends  into  the  blue  shadows  on  the  wall 
of  the  stable  in  the  middle  distance  and  the 
rocks  in  the  background.  Notice  that  it  is  lumi- 
nous, pervasive  colour  and  is  in  the  air  as  well  as 
in  the  objects.  And  what  very  exalted  senti- 
ment and  feeling!  The  picture  is  wonderfully 
decorative  and  yet  smacks  strongly  of  modern 
realism  in  its  white  light  and  pale-blue  atmos- 
phere. Injured  a  little  about  the  shepherds  at 
the  right. 


50  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

758.  Portrait  of  a  Lady.  In  the  same  general 

*  vein  as  No.  585,  with  a  similar  background;  but 

V  with  less  rigid  outline  drawing.  The  plant  pat- 
tern in  the  dress  is  most  interesting.  The  pic- 
ture has  been  attributed  to  the  Florentine  School, 
which  perhaps  is  near  enough  to  the  truth.  There 
is  no  certainty  in  the  attribution  to  Piero  and  more 
probability  in  Mr.  Berenson's  queried  attribution 
to  Paolo  Uccello.  What  a  finely  lined  profile!  An 
excellent  portrait,  somewhat  damaged  by  cleaning. 

769.    St.  Michael  and  the  Dragon.     A  small  and 

,  rather  good  figure,  with  some  colour  that  may  have 
been  helped  or  hindered  by  the  cleaning  and 
staining  which  the  picture  has  received.  The 
wings  are  a  bit  heavy,  but  they  aid  in  the  filling 
of  space  fairly  well.  The  attribution  may  be 
questioned. 

1791  Francia,  Francesco.  Madonna,  Child,  and 
180  J  Saints.  A  Francia  with  a  flayed  and  repainted 
surface  which  makes  St.  Sebastian  and  the  Child 
look  wooden  and  the  sky  look  like  a  cold  blue 
curtain.  There  is  still  colour  in  the  robes.  The 
best  part  of  the  picture  is  the  Pieta,  a  lunette  at 
the  top  with  a  half-arch  composition.  The  draw- 
ing (with  Francia,  always  precise)  is  now  too 
hard,  but  there  is  beauty  in  the  cold,  rigid  figure 
and  the  two  mourning  angels.  At  one  time  this 
lunette  now  in  its  proper  place  was  in  a  separate 
frame. 

638.    Madonna,     Child,    and    Two     Saints.     It    is 

warmer  in  colour  than  is  usual  with  Francia,  but 
not  the  worse  for  it.  A  simple  group  of  figures 
in  a  summarised  landscape,  with  some  good  feel- 
ing and  the  usual  Francia  sentiment. 


GADDI  51 

1035.  Franciabigio  (Francesco  Bigi).  Portrait  of  a 
Knight  of  Malta.  With  an  Andrea  del  Sarto 
look  about  it,  especially  in  the  landscape.  A 
good  example  of  Franciabigio,  but  quite  different 
in  many  ways  from  the  two  examples  put  down 
to  him  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  (Nos.  245  and 
245A). 

1419.  French  School.  Legend  of  St.  Giles.  There 
is  some  very  good  work  in  the  figures.  The 
drawing  is  excellent  as  also  the  colour.  The  land- 
scape is  Flemish  enough,  though  the  figures  have 
a  largeness  of  form  and  a  fulness  of  robe  that 
point  to  the  French  border  painters  rather  than 
the  painters  of  the  Van  Eyck  School. 

2615.  Mary,  Queen  of  France.  A  handsome  por- 
trait with  an  ornate  dress  and  a  green  cut-velvet 
ground.  The  lady  holds  a  vase  as  Mary  Magda- 
len. The  hands  are  frail. 

2614.    Lady    as    Mary    Magdalen.     A    little    coarse 

in  fibre,  but  rich  in  colour.  The  drawing  is  prim- 
itive and  rather  wanting  in  subtlety. 

1331.    Fungai,     Bernardino.     Madonna    and    Child. 

The  golden  robe  of  the  Madonna  is  remarkable 
for  its  texture  and  brilliancy.  The  cherubim  and 
the  landscape  are  not  remarkable. 

568.    Gaddi,  Angelo  di  Taddeo.   Coronation  of  Virgin. 

The  gold  work  in  the  haloes  is  tooled,  not  stamped. 
The  angels'  wings  were  gilded,  then  painted,  and 
afterwards  the  lines  of  the  feathers  were  cut 
through  with  a  sharp  instrument  to  show  the 
gilding  beneath.  The  gold  work  on  the  orange 
floor  is  underbased  but  the  gold  patterns  on  the 
Madonna's  robe  are  overlaid.  The  picture  is  in- 


52  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

teresting  also  for  its  Giottesque  sentiment,  its 
rather  large  drawing,  its  ample  draperies,  and  its 
rich  colour.  A  fine  work,  but  the  bright  frame 
hurts  it. 

671.  Garofalo  (Benvenuto  Tisi).  Madonna  and 
Child  with  Saints.  A  large  Garofalo  with  a 
marked  effect  of  shadowed  background  and  good 
pyramidal  composition.  The  draperies  are  well 
drawn  but  the  saints  are  a  little  prosaic  in  type 
and  the  Madonna  merely  pretty.  It  is  a  dull, 
cold-coloured  Garofalo.  Somewhat  injured  by 
cleaning. 

1085.  Geertgen  tot  Sint  Jans  (Gerard  of  Haarlem). 
Virgin  and  Child.  There  is  as  little  known 

V  about  this  man  and  his  work  as  about  Robert 
Campin.  He  is  practically  a  name  only,  and 
attributions  of  works  to  him  are  more  or  less 
arbitrary.  Several  pictures  attributed  to  him  in 
European  galleries  (Amsterdam,  Vienna,  Berlin, 
Paris),  when  brought  together,  show  similarity 
in  style  and  method.  They  are  very  likely  by 
one  man,  but  whether  that  one  is  Geertgen  tot 
Sint  Jans  is  not  easily  determined.  The  types 
and  figures  in  this  National  Gallery  picture  agree 
measurably  with  the  others  of  the  group  (espe- 
cially with  the  Vienna  picture),  but  the  landscape 
differs  from  all  of  them.  This  landscape,  though 
a  little  formal,  is  really  the  most  interesting  por- 
tion of  the  picture.  Look  at  the  trees,  their  group- 
ing, and  the  blue  sky  seen  between  the  trunks. 
Look  at  the  yellow  lamplight  in  the  church 
windows  and  the  white  clouds  in  the  sky  that 
seem  to  suggest  a  moonlight  scene.  Sir  Claude 
Phillips  thinks  it  a  sunset  effect  with  golden  light 


GHIRLANDAJO  53 

reflected  from  the  windows.  See  his  interesting 
article  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  October,  1904. 
He  further  and  rightly  asserts  that  the  picture 
represents  a  mystic  marriage  of  St.  Catherine. 

195.  German  School,  16th  Century.  Portrait  of  a 
Medical  Professor.  The  drawing  is  satisfactory, 
but  the  picture  is  a  little  hard,  dry,  and  dull.  Mr. 
Lippmann  thinks  it  a  "  characteristic  example  of 
the  Master  of  the  Death  of  the  Virgin." 

1049.  German  School,  15th  Century.  The  Cruci- 
fixion.  A  work  of  harsh  realism  that  has  much 
power  about  it  as  well  as  grim  tragedy.  The 
figures  on  the  crosses,  especially  the  writhing 
thief  at  the  right,  are  notable.  The  composition 
is  overcrowded  but  the  picture  is  good  in  colour. 
There  is  a  wealth  of  figures,  colour,  and  agony  in 
the  panel. 

1299.    Ghirlandajo,  School  of.     Portrait  of  a  Youth. 

A  strong,  frank  face,  with  plain  drawing  and  a 
simple  costume.  Originally  an  excellent  head, 
but  now  injured  by  repainting,  which  has  perhaps 
reddened  and  coarsened  the  flesh  notes.  There 
is  fine  outline  drawing  in  the  cap  and  the  cloak. 

1143.    Ghirlandajo,  Ridolfo.     Procession  to  Calvary. 

It  is  a  burst  of  bright  colours  with  small  idea  of 
subordination  and  very  little  sense  of  refinement 
or  harmony.  The  colour  is  bleached  or  darkened, 
but  not  kept  in  value  under  light  and  under 
shadow.  This  and  the  smooth  surface  were  con- 
sidered virtues  by  the  Raphael  followers.  Some 
of  the  heads  suggest  Leonardo,  as,  for  example, 
that  of  the  man  on  horseback.  The  landscape 
far  back  is  very  good. 


54  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

2491.  Girolamo  Benevieni.  A  dark  picture  show- 
ing a  determined  face  with  some  preciseness  of 
drawing  and  just  a  hint  of  Franciabigio  about  it. 

269.  Giorgione  (Giorgio  Barbarelli).  A  Knight  in 
Armour.  This  little  figure  follows  closely  the  St. 
^  Liberale  in  the  Castelfranco  Madonna  by  Gior- 
gione,  about  the  only  difference  in  design  being 
that  the  head  wears  no  helmet  in  this  picture. 
It  is  also  warmer  in  colour  all  through,  and  the 
silvered  armour  lighter  in  tone  than  in  the  Castel- 
franco canvas.  It  is  probably  an  old  copy  rather 
than  a  study,  but  in  either  event  a  good  bit  of 
work. 

1160.    Adoration  of  the  Magi.     It  is  Giorgionesque 

in  character,  but,  like  a  number  of  other  pictures 
in  European  galleries  put  down  to  this  master, 
there  is  no  certainty  about  the  attribution.  The 
picture  is  attractive  in  colour. 

1123.    Giorgione,  School  of.     Venus  and  Adonis.     It 

perhaps  comes  nearer  to  the  School  of  Titian  than 
to  that  of  Giorgione.  Compare  it  with  Nos.  35,  635, 
and  270  by  Titian,  especially  in  the  landscapes, 
the  backgrounds,  the  trees,  skies,  lights. 

1173.  Unknown  Subject  or  Golden  Age.  In  its  leg- 
endary or  allegorical  subject  as  well  as  in  its  han- 
dling and  rather  bad  drawing  this  picture  is  closely 
allied  to  the  Ordeal  of  Moses  and  the  Judg- 
ment of  Solomon  in  the  Uffizi  Gallery  (Nos.  621 
and  630).  The  landscapes  differ  as  regards  their 
trees,  but  not  their  arrangement  by  planes  or  their 
general  treatment.  The  figures  and  their  plac- 
ing in  the  foreground  with  the  general  colour 
scheme  are  also  reminiscent  of  the  Uffizi  pictures. 


GIROLAMO  DAI  LIBRI  55 

It  is  slighter  work,  a  smaller  picture,  but  by  the 
same  hand.  That  hand,  as  suggested  in  the  Uffizi 
Notes,  was  not  Giorgione's  but  probably  Roma- 
nino's.  Aside  from  technical  and  structural  anal- 
ogies, all  the  pictures  have  the  narrow,  cross- 
eyes  of  Romanino — a  mannerism  found  in  almost 
every  Romanino  extant.  See  Berlin,  Nos.  155, 
157;  Cassel,  Nos.  502A,  503;  Budapest,  No.  126; 
Brera,  No.  98.  The  so-called  Giorgione  copy  at 
Budapest  of  Paris  and  the  Shepherds  (No.  145), 
the  Horoscope  at  Dresden  (No.  186)  also  have 
these  squinting  cross-eyes  with  Romanino' s  colour- 
ing, handling,  and  loose  drawing. 

1295.  Giovenone,  Girolamo.  Madonna,  Child,  and 
Saints.  The  golden  banner  and  the  red  canopy 
make  quite  a  blare  of  colour  that  is  decorative 
enough  though  high  in  key.  The  figures  are 
rather  monotonous  in  the  types.  They  are  all  of 
a  family,  with  a  family  nose  and  eyes  that  even 
the  Child  and  the  angels  inherit.  A  similar  repe- 
tition shows  in  the  hands. 

748.  Girolamo  dai  Libri.  The  Madonna,  Child,  and 
*  St.  Anne.  The  figures  are  a  little  stiff  and  the 
group  rather  too  plastic,  perhaps.  The  figures 
at  first  look  as  though  making  an  effort  to  keep 
from  falling  apart.  There  is  dignity  and  truth 
about  them,  however.  The  drawing  is  pro- 
nounced in  the  contours,  noses,  brows,  and  hands, 
but  again  it  records  truth  and  knowledge.  The 
colour  is  the  better  part  of  the  picture  with  the 
rose  trellis  at  the  back  and  the  fine  landscape 
beyond  it.  Look  at  the  unconscious  quality  of  the 
little  angels  with  the  green  parrot  wings  below. 
And  the  dead  dragon  under  the  Madonna's  feet. 


56  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

632  \  Girolamo  da  Santa  Croce.     Saint  Reading  and 

633  /  A  Saint  with  a  Standard.     Companion  panels  that 

once  probably  belonged  to  some  altar-piece.  They 
have  richness  of  colour  and  some  excellence  in  the 
drawing  of  the  faces  and  the  robes.  The  skies 
in  both  pictures  are  yellow  streaked,  an  effect 
frequently  repeated  by  this  painter.  This  is  grace- 
ful recitation  after  the  Bellini  formula,  but  not 
very  profound  or  original  work. 

946.    Gossart,    Jan    (Mabuse).     A   Man's    Portrait. 

With  uneasy  hands  that  are  not  too  well  drawn. 
The  figure  and  costume  well  given,  as  also  the 
bony  face.  It  shows  the  pale-blue  eyeballs  pe- 
culiar to  Gossart. 

2211.  Portrait  of  Jacqueline  de  Bourgogne  (?). 

The  flat  figure  is  painted  against  a  wall  panel  with 
sleeves  and  head-dress  that  overlap  the  panelling. 
This  produces  the  uncomfortable,  protrusive  look 
of  the  figure.  Very  minutely  and  carefully  done 
— in  the  hair  and  costume,  for  instance.  The 
colour  is  charming,  and  the  character  quite  attrac- 
tive. The  hands  are  injured. 

2163.  The  Magdalen.  A  charming  little  figure  in 

every  way,  and  here  the  miniature  style  of  work- 

\j^  ing  is  appropriate  to  the  size  of  the  picture.  The 
drawing  is  very  accurate  and  exact,  while  the 
colouring  is  lovely. 

1689.    Portrait  of  a   Man   and   Wife.     It  is  in  the 

same  style  that  we  know  in  the  other  works  of 
Gossart — that  is,  minute,  exact,  painstaking, 
sometimes  irritating  in  its  pettiness,  but  always 
more  or  less  to  be  marvelled  over.  There  is  a 
little  larger  method  in  this  picture  than  usual, 
and  considerable  truth  of  characterisation. 


GOSSART  57 

2790.    Adoration  of  Kings.     This  is  the  most  pop- 

*  ular  Flemish  picture  in  the  National  Gallery, 
and  usually  has  an  audience  before  it.  Perhaps 
that  is  due  to  the  fact  that  people  can  study  it 
through  a  microscope,  and,  if  it  were  not  for  the 
glass,  could  pick  up  the  tiles  and  the  red  cap  on 
the  floor.  It  is  a  remarkable  example  of  minia- 
ture goldsmith's  work  put  into  a  large  picture, 
as  one  may  see  by  looking  closely  at  the  patterns. 
Look,  for  instance,  at  the  edge  of  the  black  king's 
robe,  or  his  white  scarf,  or  his  crown,  or  the  pres- 
ent in  his  hands.  Objects  done  with  as  great 
care,  and  in  as  small  a  way,  are  to  be  seen  on  the 
opposite  side,  on  the  floor,  in  the  architecture. 
It  is  a  marvel  of  minute  workmanship;  but  it  is 
quite  different  from,  say,  the  Van  Eyck  por- 
trait of  Arnolfini.  Gossart's  minutiae  detract 
from  the  ensemble.  The  work  as  a  whole  does 
not  hold  together  for  lack  of  subordination  in 
the  part.  It  has  little  unity  of  masses  or  one- 
ness of  light,  and,  as  for  air  and  space,  they  are 
somewhat  wanting.  Moreover,  there  is  a  reek 
of  variegated  colours,  but  no  colour  as  a  whole. 
To  be  sure,  the  drawing  is  accurate  in  a  small 
way,  and  there  is  marvellous  texture  painting  in 
the  stuffs,  the  stones,  the  porphyry  column  at  the 
back.  And  there  are  grace  and  loveliness  in  the 
angels  at  the  left,  especially  the  one  in  white  and 
the  one  next  to  the  white  one  with  the  wonderful 
green  robe  and  white  wings. 

Of  course,  this  is  not  painting  in  the  Hals- Velas- 
quez sense,  for  all  that  the  picture  may  be  mar- 
velled over  inch  by  inch.  Nor  is  it  painting  in  the 
Titian  sense.  There  is  very  little  dignity  of  type 
or  nobility  of  presence  here.  Nor  is  it  painting 


58  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

in  the  Tintoretto  or  Rubens  sense,  for  there  is  no 
life  or  movement.  Everything  is  petrified  by  the 
exactness  of  the  drawing.  The  angels  are  sup- 
posed to  be  winging  in,  following  one  another  like 
a  flock  of  doves,  coming  from  all  parts  of  the 
heavens;  but  they  do  not  fly,  they  do  not  move. 
All  the  movement  is  arrested  movement.  It  is 
an  early  work,  in  the  Flemish  style,  done  before 
Gossart  went  to  Italy.  Such  work  as  this  doubt- 
less had  its  influence  on  many  of  the  lesser  men, 
and  among  them,  possibly,  that  at-present  enig- 
matical character,  Herri  met  de  Bles. 

1327.  Goyen,  Jan  van.  Winter  Scene.  A  large  but 
not  very  good  or  characteristic  Van  Goyen.  It 
is  dull  and  uninspired  with  snowy  ice  and  chalky 
sky.  The  drawing  and  colour  deny  the  signature. 
It  is  too  poor  a  work  for  Van  Goyen.  No.  151 
is  better,  but  again  not  a  good  Van  Goyen. 

1119.  Grandi,  Ercole  di  Giulio  Cesare.  Madonna 
*  and  Child  with  Saints.  A  large  altar-piece 
with  a  fine  architectural  setting  in  the  throne, 
the  arch,  the  reliefs,  and  the  golden  mosaics.  It 
is  a  pyramidal  composition  in  which  the  Madonna 
is  perhaps  elevated  too  high,  which  gives  the 
impression  of  the  arch  pressing  down  upon  her. 
Both  the  Madonna  and  St.  William  show  the  in- 
fluence of  Costa.  The  latter,  in  his  peculiar  green 
armour,  is  of  sturdy  stock,  stands  firmly,  and  looks 
self-reliant.  The  colour  is  cool  all  through.  A 
handsome  altar-piece  and  important  as  represent- 
ing Ferrarese  methods  of  painting.  It  should  be 
studied  in  connection  with  the  large  Bianchi  in 
the  Louvre  (No.  1167). 


HALS,  FRANS  59 

1457.    Greco,    Domenico    Theotocopuli,    called    II. 

Christ    Driving    Out    the    Money    Changers.      In 

the  attribution  of  pictures  to  II  Greco,  there 
seems  to  be  no  reckoning  with  the  fact  that  he 
had  a  son  and  pupil,  named  Jorge  Manuel,  who 
painted  just  such  indifferent  pictures  as  this,  ex- 
aggerating the  exaggerations  of  his  father.  The 
elder  was  a  mannered-enough  genius,  but  the 
younger  was  not  even  a  genius. 

210.    Guardi,  Francesco.     View  of  San  Marco,  Yen- 
*       ice.     An  excellent  Guardi  with  much  depth  and 
beauty  of  colour,  a  fine  sky,  and  a  strong,  if  forced, 
effect  of  light  and  shade.     Note  how  easily  and 
cleverly  the  figures  are  painted,  yet  how  effective 
they  are,  not  only  as  colour  spots,  but  as  real  fig- 
ures moving  in  the  Piazza.     The  Piazza  is  a  little 
cramped  by  the  size  of  the  figures  in  the  fore- 
ground.    See  also  Nos.  2523  and  2525. 
2524.    -    —  The    Tower   of  Mestre.     What   a   beautiful 
*       silvery  note  of  colour!     And  what  a  suggestion 
of  sky,  water,  depth,  space,  air!     A  very  charm- 
ing little  picture,  though  Guardi  may  never  have 
seen  it.     It  is  not  entirely  in  his  style. 

1251.  Hals,  Frans.  Portrait  of  a  Man.  It  is  a  good 
attempt  at  the  Hals  brush  work,  but  it  is  not  spon- 
taneous. Rather  is  it  planned  and  perfunctory 
facility,  as  is  shown  in  the  regular  high  lights  of 
the  sleeve,  the  black  shoulder  piece  above  them, 
and  the  white  ruff  with  its  false  shadow  at  the 
right  and  its  fumbled  drawing  at  the  left.  The 
face  is  modelled  too  smoothly  and  roundly  for 
Hals;  the  moustache  and  pointed  beard  are  too 
formal,  and  the  hair  too  slick  and  well  combed. 
The  nose  is  hard,  and  the  forehead  (at  the  left) 


60  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

is  flat.  It  is  probably  a  workshop  or  school  piece. 
We  hear  of  such  things  in  the  case  of  a  Bellini, 
a  Botticelli,  or  a  Rubens;  why  not  occasionally 
in  the  case  of  Hals,  who  had  plenty  of  pupils? 

2285.  A  Family  Group.  This  is  a  large,  ambi- 
tious attempt  to  do  a  Hals  group  with  a  Hals 
palette  and  brush,  which  falls  short  of  the  mark 
through  insufficient  brain  to  conceive  and  hand 
to  realise.  The  figures  have  not  the  largeness 
and  bulk  of  Hals's  figures,  the  drawing  is  not  his 
drawing,  and  the  handling,  while  dashy  and  flashy 
in  places,  is  not  effective.  Notice  in  the  drawing 
the  sharpness  and  thinness  of  the  heads  of  the 
women  at  the  right,  or  the  hardness  of  the  man's 
face,  or  the  mannered  and  rigid  drawing  of  the 
hands.  Notice  in  the  handling  the  ineffective 
slashing-about  in  the  dress  of  the  child  in  arms, 
or  in  the  dress  of  the  seated  child,  or  in  the  stock- 
ings of  the  man  near  her.  Notice  the  blue-porce- 
lain quality  of  the  whole  work  with  its  cramped 
and  petty  conception.  And  how  posed  is  every 
figure  in  it,  smirking  with  a  counterfeited  mirth, 
and  doing  its  best  at  acting  a  part!  What  pic- 
ture at  Haarlem  is  like  it  or  suggests  it  or  confirms 
it?  The  landscape  is  the  best  part  of  it,  but  when 
and  where  in  his  other  work  did  Hals  ever  sug- 
gest such  a  landscape?  The  picture  probably 
belongs  to  the  Hals  workshop  or  school. 

2528.    A     Man     with    a     Glove    in    His    Hand.     A 

*        rather  careless  Hals  with  some  "go"  about  its 

N^      handling  and  drawing,  and  with  a  fine  tone  and 

good    atmospheric    setting.     The    blacks    are   of 

good    quality.     Compare    them,    and    also    the 

whites  with  the  blacks  and  whites  of  No.  2285. 


HOBBEMA  61 

There  is  a  serious  and  sober  personality  in  the 
sitter  that  is  well  expressed.  In  Hals's  late  style. 

2529.    Woman   with   a   Fan.     This  is   perhaps    an 

early  Hals  with  no  pronounced  dash  about  the 
brush  work  and  no  positive  aerial  envelope.  It 
is  a  good  uninspired  work,  excellent  as  portrai- 
ture, no  doubt,  for  all  the  ill-drawn  mouth,  but 
lacking  in  the  gusto  of  Hals.  The  whites  are  a 
little  porcelain-like;  the  blacks  are  good,  or  at 
least  unobtrusive. 

1248.  Heist,  Bartholomeus  van  der.  Portrait  of  a 
Young  Lady.  An  effect  in  blue  with  much  ac- 
curacy of  detail  and  some  prettiness  in  the  face. 
Not  a  bad  decorative  piece,  but  not  of  so  good 
a  quality  as  No.  1937. 

1937.    Portrait   of  a  Lady.     A  deliberate  portrait 

with  a  smooth  surface  and  texture  painting  car- 
ried to  the  highest  pitch.  How  well  the  dress  is 
done,  the  bow,  the  pearls,  the  collar,  the  head- 
dress! Realism  in  a  small  way  could  not  go  fur- 
ther. A  fine  type  of  womanhood  and  a  very 
good  portrait. 

830.  Hobbema,  Meindert.  The  Avenue,  Middel- 
*  harnis.  A  well-known  and  much  admired  pic- 
Sv  ture  that  has  gained  its  reputation  by  its  obvious 
foreshortening  in  the  avenue  of  trees.  But  the 
trees  would  seem  to  cut  the  picture  into  three  sec- 
tions, or  strips,  each  of  which  has  its  own  point  of 
sight,  with  the  result  of  disturbing  unity  of  effect. 
You  look  into  three  different  pockets  one  by  one. 
Aside  from  this,  the  picture  is  not  remarkable 
except  as  a  Dutch  attempt  at  realism  and  a  draw- 
ing-away  from  Ruisdael  formulas  of  landscape, 
to  some  extent.  The  sky  is  cold,  slate-hued,  but 


62  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

there  is  wind  in  it.  The  general  colour  scheme 
lacks  in  warmth.  Compare  it  with  the  Hobbema, 
No.  995.  It  is  a  famous  Hobbema,  nevertheless 
— famous  for  its  perspective. 

831.  Ruins  of  Brederode  Castle.  Quite  a  strik- 
ing effect  produced  by  the  light  of  the  castle  in 
the  middle  distance  and  its  reflection  in  the  fore- 
ground pool.  In  other  respects  the  picture  is  a 
conventional  Hobbema — the  sky  and  trees  being 
of  his  cut-and-dried  variety. 

995.    Woody  Landscape  with  Cottages.     The  mel- 

*  low  light  and  hue  of  this  picture  are  attractive, 
but  the  subject  and  manner  of  its  execution  are 
not  so  novel  as  in  No.  830.  Note  the  sky.  Also 
the  very  good  drawing  of  the  trees.  Nos.  685 
and  2571  are  less  interesting,  less  important. 

2475.  Holbein  the  Younger,  Hans.  Portrait  of 
***  Christina  of  Denmark,  Duchess  of  Milan.  This 
is  the  celebrated  Holbein  Duchess  of  Milan,  a 
portrait  than  which  nothing  could  be  more  per- 
fect or  more  beautiful.  It  is  a  masterpiece,  not 
so  much,  perhaps,  in  characterization  (for  the 
sitter  has  been  Holbeinised),  but  in  pure  art — 
art  as  expressed  by  line-drawing.  How  simply 
and  beautifully  she  stands  there  looking  at  us 
with  a  sad  little  attempt  at  a  smile,  with  her 
lovely  hands  held  idly  before  her,  in  her  widow's 
cap  and  black  pelisse!  What  a  beautiful  dress, 
how  wonderfully  drawn  it  is,  and  what  a  wonder- 
ful quality  in  the  black!  And  about  the  only 
note  of  colour  that  fine  blue-black  ground !  There 
never  was  a  more  lovely  portrait.  Of  its  kind 
and  in  its  way  it  is  about  the  last  word  in  art, 
that  is,  linear  art,  art  expressed  in  perfect  draw- 


HOOCH,  PIETER  DE  63 

ing.  There  is  naught  to  do  but  praise  it  and  be 
thankful  for  its  existence.  It  was  painted  by 
Holbein  for  Henry  the  Eighth,  who,  however,  did 
not  succeed  in  marrying  the  beautiful  duchess. 

The  Ambassadors.     This   is   a   violent   and 

unpleasant  contrast  to  the  Holbein  Duchess  (No. 
2475).  It  is  a  scattered  and  rather  stupid  com- 
position with  two  men  formally  posing  for  their 
portraits,  in  a  museum  or  antiquity  shop,  with 
various  specimens  lying  about  on  shelf  and  floor. 
The  astronomical  objects  distract  attention  from 
the  men,  and  what  is  left  is  divided  by  extrava- 
gant costumes  and  a  poison-green  curtain  at  the 
back.  There  is  some  good  work  in  the  picture, 
but  it  is  ineffective  in  the  general  result.  The 
faces  and  hands  are  much  cleaned  and  somewhat 
repainted.  The  attribution  is  doubtful.  There 
is  no  Holbein  quality  in  it,  nor  even  Holbein 
ear-marks. 

Hooch,    Pieter    de.     Refusing    the    Glass.     In 

the  painter's  more  ornate  style,  with  much  glitter 
of  brass  and  glass,  and  even  the  pink  dress  re- 
flected from  the  tile  floor.  The  figures  are  fairly 
well  drawn  and  the  colour  is  good.  We  miss  the 
painter's  usual  concentration  of  light.  The  pic- 
ture is  easily  painted. 

Courtyard     of     a     Dutch     House.      A     little 

confusing  by  reason  of  the  many  objects  and  the 
right-angle  lines  of  the  buildings,  but  all  the  ob- 
jects are  well  held  together  by  light  and  air.  The 
tone  of  the  picture  is  quite  right,  as  also  the  colour. 
The  figures  are  the  least  satisfactory  portion  of 
the  picture,  but  they  hold  their  places  well  enough 
as  spots  of  colour.  They  have  been  much  re- 


64  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

touched.     The  sky,  and  the  way  the  roof  lines 
break  into  it  at  the  right,  are  very  good. 

834.    Interior    of   a    Dutch   House.     The    drawing 

is  not  good.     Notice  the  left  arm  and  hand  of  the 
seated  man,  or  his  right  hand,  or  his  ill-placed 
head,  or  his  bad  legs.    Notice  the  flat  head,  hands, 
and  arms  of  the  servant,  or  the  poor  painting  of 
her  overskirt,  or  the  unreal  drawing  and  texture 
of  the  table-cloth.     Stand  back  and  look  for  at- 
mosphere in  the  room  and  you  will  not  find  it. 
The  light  is  not  bad  but  the  shadows  on  the  floor 
are  muddy.     The  picture  has  been  repainted,  but 
was  an  inferior  work  to  start  with.     The  attribu- 
tion is  questionable. 

835.   Court  of  a  Dutch  House.     One  of  the  best 

of  the  De  Hoochs  here,  though  retouched  in  spots. 
The  buildings  are  good  as  also  the  figures  of  the 
mother  and  child.     The  child  is  especially  naive 
and  charming.     Back  of  them  is  a  feeling  of  air 
and  shadowed  space.     The  passage  way  is  less 
attractive  than  the  brick  wall  with  the  vine  at 
the  top;  but  it  has  distance  and  some  light  to  it. 

1468.  Jacopo  di  Clone.  Crucifixion.  A  large  and 
rather  crudely  drawn  altar-piece,  but  with  bright 
decorative  colour.  The  medallions  at  the  bottom 
are  very  good.  The  painter  was  possibly  under 
the  influence  of  Orcagna. 

1895.  Jordaens,  Jakob.  Portrait  of  Baron  Waka  de 
Linter.  The  redness  of  the  face  is  not  the  only 
indication  of  its  being  a  Jordaens.  It  is  good 
enough  for  a  Rubens,  but  the  handling  that  one 
can  now  see,  after  much  cleaning  and  rubbing,  is 
not  that  of  Rubens  but  Jordaens.  A  fine  por- 


LANDINI  65 

trait  with  much  bluff  vigour  and  life  in  the  work, 
as  in  the  type. 

701.  Justus  of  Padua.  Coronation.  A  triptych 
that  has  been  retouched  but  still  has  good  robes 
and  ornamental  patterns.  Notice  the  white  angel 
of  the  Annunciation  at  the  top  and  also  the  Ma- 
donna. It  is  not  the  best  of  workmanship,  but  the 
general  effect  is  pleasing. 

212.  Keyser,  Thomas  de.  A  Merchant  and  His 
Clerk.  Hard,  but  accurately  drawn,  except  per- 
haps in  the  legs,  and  well  painted  throughout. 
The  accessory  objects  are  a  bit  overdone,  over- 
accented. 

974.    Koninck,    Philips.     View  of   the    Scheldt.     A 

fine  big  landscape  with  much  breadth  and  sweep 
in  both  land  and  sky.  It  is  excellent  in  its  reach, 
its  light,  its  colour.  This  painter's  work  has  been 
given  to  Rembrandt  more  than  once,  so  strong 
is  it  in  light  and  shade. 

836.    Landscape,    View  in  Holland.     Of  the  same 

general  character  as  No.  974,  but  not  so  broad 
nor  so  free,  nor  so  fine  in  colour.  It  is  a  little  dis- 
turbed by  the  many  horizontal  lines  and  the  heavy 
oppressive  clouds. 

580.  Landini,  Jacopo.  St.  John  Evangelist  Lifted 
into  Heaven.  An  altar-piece  in  its  original  frame 
with  all  its  panels  and  predella  intact.  As  a  whole, 
a  work  of  fine  decorative  quality.  The  Madonna 
and  the  Angel  of  the  Annunciation  at  the  top  are 
beautiful,  and  the  scenes  of  the  predella  are  rich 
in  colour  and  gold.  The  central  panel  is  naive 
in  its  grouping  and  action.  Attributed  to  Giovanni 
da  Ponte  by  Mr.  Murray.  Restored  throughout. 


>6  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

700.  Lanini,  Bernardino.  Holy  Family.  It  shows 
in  the  Madonna,  Child,  and  Magdalen,  not  so 
much  the  style  of  Gaudenzio  Ferrari  or  Leonardo, 
who  influenced  Lanini,  as  a  following  of  Correggio. 
It  is  not  lacking  in  either  the  figures  or  the 
landscape  if  they  could  only  be  induced  to  come 
together  and  unite;  but  as  they  are  at  present, 
the  figures  are  flattened  in  a  group  and  pushed 
into  the  footlights.  The  colour  is  rather  "  fetching." 
1093.  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  Virgin  of  the  Rocks. 

**  As  all  the  world  knows,  there  is  another  picture 
similar  to  this  in  the  Louvre  (No.  1599).  The 
Louvre  picture  came  almost  certainly  from  the 
collection  of  Francis  I,  at  whose  court  Leonardo 
died,  and  who  would  not  be  likely  to  be  deceived 
by  a  false  Leonardo.  Most  authorities  are  agreed 
that  the  Louvre  picture  is  the  original  and  that 
this  National  Gallery  picture  is  an  old  copy  with 
variations  (notably  in  the  turn  of  the  angel's 
head,  and  the  absence  of  an  outstretched  fore- 
finger), by  some  follower  of  Leonardo,  presum- 
ably Ambrogio  da  Predis.  This  National  Gal- 
lery picture  is  darker  than  the  Louvre  version, 
more  sooty  in  the  flesh  shadows,  more  grey  in 
the  high  lights,  which  would  point  more  directly 
to  Ambrogio  than  to  any  other  pupil  or  follower. 
And  the  drawing,  where  it  varies,  is  reminiscent 
of  Ambrogio.  Possibly  the  question  will  never 
be  more  positively  decided  than  now,  and  this 
picture  will  always  have  its  admirers,  as  indeed 
it  should.  In  some  respects  (the  drapery  and  its 
handling),  it  is  better  than  the  Louvre  picture. 
See  the  note  on  the  Paris  picture.  Either  pic- 
ture is  entitled  to  consideration  by  the  student  of 
Leonardo  and  his  school. 


LIPPI,  FILIPPINO  67 

1134.  Liberale  da  Verona.  Virgin  and  Child  with 
Angels.  The  heads  of  the  angels  are  attractive. 
The  lines  of  the  picture  appear  hard,  and  the  eyes 
are  glassy.  Rubbed  too  much. 

2864.  Lievens,  Jan.  Portrait.  There  is  little  about 
it  that  speaks  for  Lievens.  He  was  a  pupil  and 
follower  of  Rembrandt,  painting  softly  modelled 
heads  with  very  pale  luminous  shadows.  Here 
is  a  painter  with  blackish  shadows  and  rather 
harsh  modelling  in  the  nose,  forehead,  and  else- 
where. Moreover,  the  whole  feeling  here  is  more 
Flemish  than  Dutch — a  feeling  of  some  one  fol- 
lowing Van  Dyck  rather  than  Rembrandt.  It 
is  signed  I.  L.,  which  may  stand  for  Jan  Lievens  if 
you  are  Scotch,  but  not  if  you  are  Dutch.  And  why 
will  it  not  stand  for  John  Lely?  The  catalogue 
of  this  gallery  under  Peter  Lely  states  that  he  had 
a  grandson  John  who  painted  portraits.  The 
signature  fits  Ian  Lely  as  well  as  Jan  Lievens,  and 
the  work  fits  him  far  better.  Sir  Peter  Lely  was 
a  Van  Dyck  follower,  and  almost  any  one  can  see 
him  at  second  hand  in  this  portrait — except  that 
it  is  a  little  stronger  than  Lely  usually  painted. 

293.  Lippi,  Filippino.  Virgin  and  Child  with  Saints 
Jerome  and  Dominic.  A  picture  of  fine  qual- 
ity in  almost  every  respect.  It  has  feeling  and 
sentiment  almost  to  tears  in  the  Madonna  and  St. 
Dominic;  the  drawing  of  it  is  quite  true  and 
right;  the  colour,  with  the  repeated  notes  of  red 
and  gold,  is  attractive;  the  landscape,  for  early 
Florentine  art,  is  wonderfully  fine.  The  figures 
form  the  conventional  pyramid,  with  the  desired 
effect  of  exalting  both  the  Virgin  and  the  Child. 
It  is  an  exceptionally  good  Filippino.  Look  at  the 


68  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

small  figures  in  the  predella.  They  are  charm- 
ing both  in  sentiment  and  in  colour. 

927.  Angel  Adoring.  This  fragment  shows  very 

well  what  is  called  the  religious  sentiment  of  Early 

>^  Renaissance  Art.  It  is  merely  a  scrap  of  a  tem- 
pera picture  that  happened  to  be  saved  from  de- 
struction, but  it  is  very  fine,  not  only  in  colour 
but  in  feeling. 

666.  Lippi,  Fra  Filippo.    Annunciation.    A  half-arch 
*       picture,   beautiful  in  sentiment  and  very  lovely 

in  colour.  How  prettily  the  peacock  wings  of 
-J  "the  angel  suggest  the  curve  of  the  arch!  How 
well  the  Madonna  with  the  golden-hued  drapery 
back  of  her  balances  the  angel!  The  profiles  are 
sharp,  the  hands  a  little  formal,  the  draperies 
folded  and  pressed,  but  such  things  do  not  seem 
to  detract  from  the  beauty  of  the  picture.  In 
fact,  they  belong  to  it,  and  are  a  part  of  the  age 
of  faith,  in  art  as  well  as  in  religion.  Flowers  are 
everywhere,  rich  marbles,  fine  stuffs,  golden  ha- 
loes. The  dove  descends  in  golden  spirals. 

667.    St.    John    Baptist    and   Six    Saints.     It    has 

much  fervour  and  religious  feeling  about  it,  as  the 
last  two  figures  at  the  left  indicate.  The  drap- 
vJ  eries  are  well  given  and  the  colour  is  good.  A 
fine  arabesque  of  surrounding  trees  and  flowers 
that  emphasise  the  lunette  form  of  the  frame. 
Somewhat  injured. 

705.   Lochner,  Stephen.   (Ascribed  to.)   Three  Saints. 

A  patterned  gold  background  and  naive  youthful 
figures  in  rich  robes  standing  in  relief  against  it. 
Ascribed  by  Mr.  Lippmann  to  the  Master  of  the 
Heisterbach  Altar,  but  these  saints  are  quite  like 


LOTTO,  LORENZO  69 

those  in  the  Lochners  in  the  Old  Pinacothek  at 
Munich. 

1147.  Lorenzetti,  Ambrogio.  Heads  of  Nuns.  In- 
teresting not  only  for  the  fresco  work  of  the  Sien- 
ese  School,  but  because  the  heads  are  excellent  in 
themselves.  The  outlines  are  drawn  with  certainty 
and  with  an  artistic  feeling  for  line  as  line. 

2151  Lorenzo,   Don   (II   Monaco).     Various  Saints. 

216  J  A  diptych  with  good  colour  and  gold  work — the 
latter  very  fine.  Note  the  variety  of  patterns 
in  the  haloes.  The  faces  and  hands  should  be 
noticed  for  the  changes  in  the  Italian  type  that 
are  going  on  at  this  time.  The  robes  are  easily 
and  well  done. 

1897.    Coronation    of   the    Virgin.     There    is    some 

striving  for  grace  apparent  in  the  three  angels 
at  the  bottom,  but  the  Madonna  and  Christ  above 
are  done  simply  enough.  The  colours  lack  in 
quality,  though  the  robe  of  the  Madonna  is  deli- 
cate and  the  gilded  borders  attractive. 

2862.    St.  Giovanni  Gualbarto  Instituting  the  Order 

of  Vallombrosa.  What  a  superb  bit  of  colour! 
What  a  study  in  whites !  No  doubt  it  has  ripened 
with  time,  but  just  now  it  seems  the  perfection 
of  refined  colour  and  delicate  shadow. 

249.  Lorenzo  di  San  Severino.  Marriage  of  St. 
Catherine.  The  picture  is  not  well  drawn  and 
has  no  depth,  but  there  is  a  handsome  robe  for 
the  Madonna  and  attractive  little  angels  at  the 
top. 

1047.    Lotto,    Lorenzo.     A    Family    Group.     A   for- 

*       mally  balanced  composition  with  portrait  heads 

that  Lotto  has  probably  romanced  by  putting 


70  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

into  the  faces  some  of  his  own  sensitive  disposi- 
tion. But  with  good  results  nevertheless.  The 
man  and  woman  have  souls  and  even  the  child 
on  the  table  has  some  morbid  quality  about  it. 
Notice  the  play  of  action  around  the  dish  of  cher- 
ries and  the  drawing  of  the  hands  that  repeat 
each  other.  The  hands  are  a  little  stiff  and  the 
figures  not  lithe  or  willowy.  The  costumes  are 
handsome  in  hue  and  texture  and  the  warm  colour 
sharply  broken  by  the  cold  blues  is  very  good. 
The  landscape  with  that  flat  sea  and  sky  reaching 
back  so  endlessly  is  superb.  Somewhat  injured 
by  cleaning. 

1105.    Portrait   of  the  Prothonotary  Apostolic  Ju- 

*  Uano.  The  picture  is  hurt  by  repainting,  but 
it  is  remarkable  what  force  and  character,  with 
refinement,  the  face  still  possesses.  It  is  the  Doge 
Loredano  type  of  face,  thin,  shrewd,  resolute, 
and  yet  withal  gentle.  What  a  sharp-pointed 
nose,  a  thin  little  mouth,  a  hard  chin  and  a  leath- 
ery throat!  The  power  of  the  man  seems  ac- 
cented by  the  large  strong  hands.  He  is  more 
than  a  mere  churchman;  he  is  a  man  of  rule.  A 
fine  bit  of  characterisation.  The  table-cloth  is 
disturbing  and  the  landscape  now  looks  crude. 

699.    Portraits  of  Agostino  and  Niccolo  della  Torre. 

It  is  an  official  portrait,  no  doubt,  but  not  done 
in  the  perfunctory  way  usual  with  modern  por- 
traits of  the  kind.  The  insignia  of  office  are  a 
little  too  prominent,  but  the  heads  and  figures  are 
well  placed  and  well  summarised.  There  is  much 
intelligence  in  the  faces.  Some  irregularities  in  the 
features  perhaps  help  out  the  individualities.  The 
drawing  is  quite  right  and  the  second  figure  is  ex- 


MAES,  NICOLAS  71 

actly  in  value  and  properly  related  to  the  first 
figure.  There  is  air.  And  envelope. 

184.  Lucidel  (Neufchatel),  Nicolas.  Portrait  of  a 
Young  German  Lady.  The  surface  is  somewhat 
scrubbed,  but  the  picture  still  remains  a  fine  piece 
of  colour — old  Venetian-red  colour.  The  textures 
are  beautifully  rendered.  And  what  a  timid  girl- 
ish type!  Formerly  attributed  to  Antonio  Moro, 
but  beyond  a  doubt  by  Lucidel. 

18.  Luini,  Bernardino.  Christ  Disputing  with  the 
Doctors.  Luini  is  not  always  so  saccharine  as 
this  picture  would  indicate.  He  should  be  seen 
in  his  frescoes  in  the  Brera,  or  at  least  in  those  in 
the  Louvre.  This  is  a  prettier  and  more  of  a 
dinner-plate  picture  than  usual,  though  fairly 
good  in  colour. 

1247.  Maes,  Nicolas.  The  Card  Players.  A  very 
*  fine  Maes  with  good  colour  and  light.  The  draw- 
V  ing,  handling,  and  light  suggest  the  painter's 
Rembrandtesque  manner.  Note  the  emphasis  of 
the  joints  of  the  hands,  the  nails,  and  the  red 
knuckles.  Note  also  the  dark  shadows  of  the 
eyes  and  the  shadow  on  the  white  drapery  of  the 
sleeve.  These  should  be  compared  with  those  in 
the  portrait  No.  1675  in  this  gallery  put  down  to 
Rembrandt  but  really  by  Maes.  See  also  No.  757 
hanging  near  at  hand,  which  suggests  that  Maes 
had  something  to  do  with  it. 

207.   The  Idle  Servant.     In  the  late  smooth  style 

of  Maes  and  of  little  value  as  art.  The  black 
shadows  and  his  spots  of  red  are  still  apparent. 
The  brush  is  rather  heavily  loaded  for  a  small 
and  smooth  picture. 


72  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

2581.    -     —Portrait     of     A.      Van    Leuwenhoek,     F.R.S. 

There  is  insistence  upon  wrinkles,  curtains,  and 
prettily  painted  hair.  It  is  in  the  popular  por- 
trait style  of  Maes,  when  he  followed  Plutus 
rather  than  Rembrandt. 

2502.  Mainardi,  Bastiano.  Virgin,  Child,  and  St. 
John.  It  seems  in  the  style  of  Mainardi,  is  smooth 
and  round  in  its  drawing,  and  with  a  brilliant  red 
in  the  Madonna's  under  dress.  Note  the  stately 
city  at  the  back.  See  also  No.  2489  put  down  to 
Ghirlandajo,  but  possibly  nearer  his  brother-in- 
law  and  follower,  Mainardi. 

1104.  Manni,  Giannicolo.  The  Annunciation.  This 
is  a  close  following  of  Perugino  and  the  Umbrian 
traditions  which  he  established.  Even  the  mat- 
ter of  "eyes"  in  the  drapery  is  copied.  It  has 
pleasing  sentiment. 

1417.    Mantegna,    Andrea.     Agony    in    the    Garden. 

*  A  fine  landscape  with  a  remarkable  city  in  the 
background  with  tiny  figures  pouring  out  from  the 
gate  and  growing  larger  in  size  as  they  come  into 
the  middle  distance.  The  drawing  of  the  sleep- 
ing figures  and  their  robes  is  severe  but  accurate, 
the  colour  is  rich,  the  landscape  Mantegnesque,  the 
sky  darker  than  the  earth.  An  early  Mantegna 
with  a  hint  of  where  Basaiti  may  have  got  certain 
features  of  his  landscape.  He  seems  to  have  taken 
his  bird,  tree,  and  figures  under  the  rock  from  this 
Mantegna.  The  Basaiti  Agony  in  the  Garden  at 
Venice  (No.  69),  and  the  Rocco  Marconi  there  (it 
is  probably  by  Basaiti),  and  the  Resurrection  put 
down  to  Bellini  (but  really  by  Basaiti)  at  Berlin 
(No.  1177A),  all  repeat  certain  features  in  this 
Mantegna  and  in  the  Bellini  in  the  next  room 


MARCO  D'OGGIONO  73 

(No.  726);  but  they  are  widely  apart  in  other 
features. 

274.    The     Virgin,    Child,    St.    John    Baptist,    and 

Magdalen.  A  very  good  Mantegna,  both  as 
form  and  as  colour.  The  drawing  is  sharp  and  the 
drapery  Hney,  as  though  studied  from  sculpture 
or  wet  linen  thrown  over  a  model.  The  figures 
themselves  are  sculpturesque,  but  noble,  full  of 
dignity,  possessed  of  feeling.  The  bend  of  the 
figures  suggests  grace,  but  the  grace  is  not  that 
of  the  figures  in  the  two  Louvre  pictures  (Nos. 
1375  and  1376).  Nor  is  the  colour  so  high  in  key 
as  in  the  Louvre  pictures,  but  it  is  very  harmo- 
nious. The  fruit  and  foliage  make  an  arabesque 
at  the  back.  A  fine  sky.  Painted  in  tempera. 

902.    The     Triumph    of    Scipio.      It    shows    Man- 

tegna's  sculpturesque  leanings,  better  perhaps  in 
W  monochrome  than  if  in  colours.  The  whole  can- 
vas looks  like  a  drawing  of  a  bas-relief.  Notice 
the  draperies  and  the  sculptural  way  in  which 
they  reveal  the  figures.  These  are  wonderful* 
types — the  severest  and  yet  the  strongest  kind 
of  art.  In  tempera  upon  a  marbled  ground. 

1125.    Vestal  Virgin   Lucia   and  Sophonisba.     Two 

figures  of  the  same  sculpturesque  character  as 
those  in  No.  902.  Notice  how  the  draperies  stop 
at  the  ground  without  breaking.  Also  the  sculp- 
tural modelling  of  the  busts.  It  is  possibly  a 
school  piece,  but  decidedly  Mantegnesque  never- 
theless. In  gold  and  brown  monochrome  on  a 
marbled  ground. 

1149.    Marco    d'Oggiono.      Madonna    and    Child.     It 

will  hardly  do  to  judge  this  painter  from  this 


74  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

slight  example,  with  its  bad  drawing,  cold  colour- 
ing, and  retouched  surface.  It  is  too  much  in- 
jured now,  and  was  never  an  important  work  at 
any  time. 

564.    Margaritone  (d'Arezzo).     Madonna  and  Child. 

An  interesting  panel  in  tempera,  belonging  to  the 
thirteenth  century,  and  showing  the  style  of  work 
then  prevalent  in  Tuscany.  It  is  the  traditional 
Byzantine  style,  varied  slightly  in  the  patterns, 
perhaps.  The  work  is  painted  on  cloth  which  is 
glued  to  wood.  See  the  note  upon  it  in  the 
catalogue. 

1302  1  Marmion,  Simon.     The  Soul  of  St.  Bertin  and 

1303  /  a  Choir  of  Angels.     Two  panels  or  shutters,  the 

wings  of  an  altar-piece  now  in  Berlin,  attributed  to 
Marmion.  Very  pretty  angels  with  a  suggestion 
of  sky-space  given  by  the  church  spire  and  the 
roof  below. 

Martino  da  Udine.  See  Pellegrino  da  San 
Daniele. 

803.  Marziale,  Marco.     The  Circumcision.     A  large 
and  overcrowded  composition  with  rigid  drawing, 
and  colour  that  lacks  in  impressiveness.    There  is 
an  attempt  at  splendour  of  effect  in  the  mosaic 
arches  as  in  the .  variegated  robes,  but  no  great 
unity  of  effect.     The  work  is  painted  in  tempera 
on  canvas. 

804.    Madonna  and  Child  Enthroned  with  Saints. 

This  seems  a  more  satisfactory  example  of  Mar- 
ziale than  No.  803,  perhaps  because  it  is  done  in 
oils,  is  better  done,  is  not  so  oppressive  in  the 
mosaics,  has  a  more  truthful  inset  of  the  figures, 
and  a  better  quality  of  light  and  shade  in  the 


MASTER  OF  LIFE  OF  VIRGIN  75 

robes.     The  drawing  is  somewhat  lacking,   but 
the  colour  is  brilliant. 

Massys,  Quentin.     See  Metsys. 

Master  of  the  Death  of  the  Virgin.     See  Cleve, 
Juste  van. 

2922.  Master  of  Delft.  Crucifixion.  A  triptych  with 
scenes  from  the  crucifixion  in  the  side  wings.  It 
is  somewhat  brutal  in  theme,  in  types,  in  action, 
in  sentiment.  The  drawing  is  coarse,  crude,  in- 
adequate; the  composition  is  scattered.  But  the 
bright  colour  and  the  fine  robes  save  it,  give  it 
.  decorative  quality,  make  it  interesting. 

254  I  Master  of  Liesborn.  The  Annunciation.  These 
257  /  are  panels  of  considerable  merit.  Notice  how  well 
the  interior  in  the  Annunciation  panel  is  done 
with  the  red  bed-curtains,  the  still-life,  and  the 
bright  cushions  on  the  box.  The  figures  are,  of 
course,  somewhat  angular.  There  is  good  sen- 
timent shown  in  all  the  panels.  See  the  catalogue 
note  for  the  painter. 

707.  Master  of  the  St.  Bartholomew  Altar.  Two 
Saints.  There  is  here  some  fine  quality  of  colour 
as  well  as  of  gold  work.  The  robes  are  superb, 
especially  the  brocade  of  the  saint  at  the  right. 
There  is  very  good  drawing  of  an  attenuated  and 
exact  kind.  Look  at  the  hands  and  at  the  out- 
lines of  the  heads.  Other  portions  of  this  altar- 
piece  are  in  the  Munich  Gallery  (Nos.  48-50). 

706.    Master  of  the  Life  of  the  Virgin.     Presenta- 
tion in  the  Temple.     Quite  in  the  style  of  cer- 
,j     tain  panels  at  Munich  attributed  to  this  painter 
— a  supposed  Johann  von  Duyren.     The  work  is 
very  well  done,  with  much  beauty  of  colour,  tex- 


76  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

tures,  patterns,  and  gold  work.  The  sentiment 
of  it  also  is  very  good.  The  background  gilding 
has  suffered  somewhat,  and  the  Madonna's  halo 
has  almost  disappeared.  Notice  the  fine  blue  of 
the  Madonna's  robe  and  the  brocade  of  the  High 
Priest. 

250 1  Master    of    Werden.     St.    Hubert   and  Saints. 

253  /  These  four  panels  came  from  the  abbey  church 
of  Werden  in  Germany,  and  the  painter,  who  is 
otherwise  unknown,  takes  his  name  from  them. 
They  evidently  belong  to  the  School  of  Cologne, 
and  have  decorative  value  in  their  gold  work  and 
patterned  brocades.  Notice  the  early  landscapes 
at  the  back. 

1155.  MattCO  di  Giovanni.  Assumption  of  the  Vir- 
gin. A  large  and  somewhat  hard  altar-piece, 
with  an  oval  of  angels  surrounding  the  Madonna 
and  swinging  prettily  from  the  sides  towards  the 
centre.  There  is  much  colour,  and  some  of  it  (no- 
tably the  blues)  is  too  harsh.  An  interesting  land- 
scape beneath  the  figures.  The  picture  is  impor- 
tant. In  tempera  on  a  gold  ground. 

2926.  Mazo,  Juan  Bautista  Martinez  del.  Ma- 
riana of  Austria.  A  large  picture  predominant  in 
blacks  that  were  not  characteristic  of  Mazo  alone 
but  of  Carrefio  and  others  of  the  School  of  Velas- 
quez. The  blacks  are  not  badly  handled  nor  the 
planes  of  the  picture  poorly  given.  The  space  at 
the  left  (with  small  figures)  is  well  suggested,  with 
a  feeling  for  light  and  atmosphere.  The  drawing 
is  rambling  almost  everywhere — in  the  figures  at 
the  back,  in  the  hands  of  the  sitter,  the  body  of 
the  dog,  the  wretched  curtain  at  the  right.  It  is 
not  a  bad  picture  nor  yet  a  very  good  one.  See 


MEMLING  77 

the  notes  on  the  Velasquez  pictures  here  for  fur- 
ther suggestions  about  Mazo. 

755 1  Melozzo  da  Forli.  Music  and  Rhetoric.  These 
756  /  are  companion  pieces  to  Nos.  54  and  54A  in  the 
Berlin  Gallery.  They  are  well  done,  but  per- 
haps a  little  perfunctory  in  the  manner  of  their 
doing,  wanting  in  spirit.  The  thrones  and  cos- 
tumes are  ornate,  the  colour  a  little  dull.  The 
allegory  part  of  them  is  questionable,  as  is  also 
the  attribution.  The  trend  of  modern  criticism 
is  to  give  these  pictures  to  Justus  of  Ghent. 

686.  Memling,  Hans.  Madonna  and  Child  En- 
throned.  The  picture  is  not  extraordinary  in 
composition,  colour,  or  workmanship.  The  Ma- 
donna is  of  the  Memling  type,  naive,  plaintive, 
meagre  of  figure,  but  with  some  seriousness  and 
some  nobility.  The  donor  and  St.  George  are 
better.  The  patterns  are  interesting.  Notice  at 
the  back  the  drawing  of  the  ships.  The  attribu- 
tion to  Memling  is  not  too  certain.  It  resembles 
the  Vienna  picture  (Nos.  635-636).  The  St.  John 
the  Baptist  (No.  747),  which  is  merely  "as- 
cribed" to  Memling,  is  perhaps  more  surely  from 
his  hand. 

709.    Madonna  and  Infant  Christ.     It  is  perhaps 

firmer  in  the  drawing  and  surer  in  every  way  than 
No.  686.  The  types  are  similar.  Note  the  draw- 
ing of  the  hands.  And  the  jewels.  The  attribu- 
tion is  not  positive,  but  again  the  work  is  very 
Memlingesque.  And  excellent  besides. 

2594.    The  Duke  of  Cleves.     An  early  and  very  fine 

*       portrait.     It  has  not  quite  the  intense  seriousness 
\/    that  Memling  usually  puts  into  his  portrait  heads. 


78  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

And  the  hair  is  not  exactly  of  the  Memling  kind. 
It  has  probably  been  retouched. 

839.  Metsu,  Gabriel.  The  Music  Lesson.  An  at- 
tractive Metsu  in  colour  and  textures,  though  a 
bit  glassy  and  wanting  in  air.  Compare  it  with 
the  so-called  Vermeers  in  the  next  room  to  deter- 
mine how  inferior  the  latter  really  are,  even  when 
compared  with  a  commonplace  Metsu. 

295.  Metsys,  Quenthl.  Salvator  Mundi  and  the 
Virgin  Mary.  It  may  be  questioned  if  these  fig- 
ures came  directly  from  the  hand  of  Quentin 
Metsys.  They  look  more  like  school  work.  An- 
other version  of  the  Salvator  Mundi  is  in  the 
Antwerp  Gallery  (No.  241). 

790.  Michelangelo  Buonarroti.  Entombment  of 
*  Our  Lord.  This  picture,  like  No.  809,  is  of  de- 
cided excellence  in  the  drawing,  notwithstand- 
ing some  theatrical  strain  in  the  figures  at  the 
right  and  left  of  Christ.  It  is  perhaps  too  slight 
in  the  forms  for  Michelangelo — too  tall  and  grace- 
ful. It  smacks  of  the  Decadence,  but  has  power 
about  it.  The  intimation  of  broken  tones  of  colour 
is  not  such  as  the  Sistine  ceiling  reveals.  The 
tones  are  more  subtle  and  less  austere.  The 
picture  is  unfinished,  but  has  nevertheless  been 
scrubbed  flat  in  the  faces,  arms,  legs,  and  hands. 
The  medium  in  which  it  was  painted  is  a  little 
doubtful. 

809.    Madonna,     Christ,    St.     John    Baptist,    and 

Angels.  This  unfinished  picture  should  be  ac- 
cepted as  a  fine  piece  of  drawing,  and  an  excellent, 
balanced  composition,  regardless  of  its  painter. 
No  doubt  there  was  some  strong  Michelan- 


MORETTO  DA  BRESCIA  79 

gelesque  influence  back  of  it,  but  who  actually 
did  it  is  open  to  question.  The  Madonna  is 
a  fine  type  and  recalls  the  early  Michelangelo 
Madonnas  in  marble.  The  two  angels  at  the 
right  have  more  of  delicate  grace  and  charm,  and 
also  more  colour  than  we  are  accustomed  to  asso- 
ciate with  the  work  of  the  great  Florentine. 

L098.  Montagna,  Bartolommeo.  Madonna  and 
Child.  It  is  a  slight  affair  and  does  not  ade- 
quately represent  the  strength  of  Montagna. 
The  drawing  of  the  Madonna  suggests  his  power 
without  entirely  revealing  it.  The  drapery  is 
liney.  Perhaps  Montagna  never  saw  the  pic- 
ture. Stained  and  somewhat  injured. 

735.  Morando,  Paolo  (II  Cavazzola).  St.  Roch  and 
the  Angel.  A  little  brittle  in  texture,  but  truth- 
ful in  drawing  and  easy  in  pose — the  figure  stand- 
ing well.  The  colour  is  satisfactory.  At  the  back 
there  are  leaves  done  with  such  adherence  to  fact 
that  they  may  be  identified  as  oak  leaves.  Notice 
also  the  exactness  of  drawing  in  the  rose  on  the 
ground. 

777.  Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  John.  The  senti- 
ment is  right  enough  (see  the  St.  John),  but  the 
surface  is  too  smooth,  hard,  brittle,  as  in  No.  735. 
At  the  back  are  lemon  leaves  or  bays.  No  doubt 
the  same  truth  of  fact  was  originally  apparent 
everywhere  in  the  figures,  but  they  are  now  the 
worse  for  cleaning  and  repainting. 

025.  Moretto  da  Brescia  (Alessandro  Bonvincino). 
Portrait  of  an  Italian  Nobleman.  It  looks  rather 
imposing  with  that  air  of  languid  indolence  sup- 
posed to  be  peculiar  to  nobility,  but  the  work- 
manship is  not  so  very  good.  The  legs  are  rather 


80  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

bad,  especially  the  right  one;  the  figure  does  not 
stand  well;  and  the  hands  and  arms  are  not  too 
exact  in  drawing.  The  head,  with  its  touch  of 
colour  in  the  cap,  is  the  best  part  of  it — the  col- 
umns, sky,  and  landscape  being  a  little  crude. 
It  has  been  considerably  restored. 

625.    St.   Bernardino   of  Siena   with    Saints.      One 

*  of  Moretto's  large  altar-pieces  of  double  compo- 
sition, with  the  silvery-grey  tone  of  colour  which 
he  almost  always  employed.  The  upper  and 
lower  parts  of  the  picture  are  not  united  save  by 
the  colour  scheme,  but  they  do  not  quarrel  with 
each  other.  The  drawing  and  the  draperies  are 
very  good,  and  the  saints  at  the  top  on  either  side 
of  the  Virgin  are  beautiful.  A  fine  altar-piece, 
but  somewhat  the  worse  for  its  trips  to  the  clean- 
ing room. 

2090  \  Angels.     Possibly   the   wings   of  an    altar- 

2091  /  piece.    Given  with  tenderness  of  feeling  and  much 
*       beauty  of  drawing  and  colour.     The  action  of  the 

figures  would  indicate  angels  of  the  Annunciation. 
The  lines  of  the  drapery,  strained  back  against 
the  figure,  are  in  each  case  very  effective. 

299.  Portrait  of  an  Italian  Nobleman.  A  pic- 
ture quite  as  much  as  a  portrait.  The  accesso- 
ries all  draw  away  from  the  head,  which  has  no 
marked  prominence  in  the  composition  and 
really  has  to  be  sought  for.  The  fur  collar  and 
the  curtain  are  the  first  things  to  catch  the  eye. 
The  portrait  is  not  of  much  interest.  The  attrac- 
tion of  the  picture  lies  in  its  colour,  its  stuffs, 
still-life,  and  decorative  pattern. 

1165.    Virgin     and    Child    with     Saints.      Stained, 

blackened,  and  over-cleaned,  but  in  spite  of  this 


MORONI  81 

fine  in  its  blues  and  greys  with  their  silvery  sheen. 
St.  Catherine  is  in  a  magnificent  dress  of  change- 
able silk  with  gold  borderings.  The  feeling  of 
the  picture  is  rather  impressive.  Look  at  the 
Madonna  in  the  clouds. 

L094.    Moro,  Antonio.  ( Ascribed  to. )  Portrait  of  a  Man. 

Although  too  much  rubbed,  it  has  as  much  the 
look  of  a  Moro  as  No.  1231,  in  spite  of  being 
merely  "ascribed"  to  him.  Neither  of  them  is 
a  remarkable  portrait. 

285.    Morone,     Francesco.     Madonna     and    Child. 

Both  the  Madonna  and  Child  are  attractive  in 
type  and  sentiment.  The  drawing  is  decent  and 
the  colour  resonant  in  reds.  At  the  back  a  Vero- 
nese landscape  with  a  mountain,  a  castle  and 
walls. 

697.  Moroni,  Giovanni  Battista.  Th^Tailor.  This 
**  is  the  famous  Tailor — famous,  perhaps,  not  be- 
SL  yond  his  deserts.  How  well  he  is  shown  standing 
at  his  cutting  board,  shears  in  hand!  Some  one 
has  opened  the  door  of  his  shop  and  entered,  and 
pausing  a  moment  in  his  work,  he  looks  up  to  see 
who  the  visitor  may  be.  What  a  truthful  and 
perfectly  natural  action!  And  how  well  pre- 
sented! Notice  the  arch  of  the  head,  the  turn  of 
the  eyes,  the  action  of  the  arms,  the  roundness 
of  the  body,  the  beautifully  drawn  hands,  and 
the  equally  beautiful  shears.  What  good  paint- 
ing of  textures,  good  air,  good  setting!  And  what 
serenity  and  nobility  in  the  man!  Did  all  the 
Renaissance  people — tailors  included — have  such 
noble  and  refined  faces,  or  did  the  painter  put 
nobility  into  them?  A  fine  picture,  admired  by  the 
mob,  popular  as  a  Raphael,  and  yet  thoroughly 


82  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

good  work  and  worthy  of  admiration.  It  is  not 
subtle,  morbid,  or  sensitive,  but  is  substantial, 
truthful,  honest.  It  has  a  modern  look  and  spirit 
as  though  it  might  have  been  done  yesterday — 
only  what  master  of  yesterday  or  to-day  could 
doit? 

742.    The   Lawyer.     Not   so    completely  satisfac- 

*  tory  as  the  Tailor  (No.  697),  but  a  very  good 
portrait.  It  has  not  the  frank  quality  of  the 
other;  in  fact,  it  looks  a  little  posed  in  its  severity 
of  air,  its  superciliousness  and  hauteur.  Nor  has 
it  so  much  colour.  The  workmanship  of  it — the 
drawing  of  head,  face,  and  hands — is  quite  as  true, 
quite  as  masterful,  though  the  hands  are  less 
ample.  Again  the  atmospheric  setting  is  excel- 
lent and  the  blacks  and  whites  fairly  well  re- 
lated though  the  whites  are  a  little  high  in  key. 
In  characterisation  it  is  perhaps  not  so  convinc- 
ing as  the  Tailor,  but  it  is  by  no  means  weak.  A 
fine  portrait! 

1022.    Portrait  of  an  Italian  Nobleman.     The  com- 
position here  is  disturbed  by  too  many  objects, 
but  the  painting  is  very  well  done — especially  in 
the  textures,  which  are  beyond  reproach.    The 
portrait  is  not  so  effective,  perhaps,  as  the  painter's 
half-lengths.     See  also  the  full-length  No.  1316. 

1023.    Portrait  of  an  Italian  Lady.     The  lady  suf- 
fers from  the  splendour  of  her  gown.     One's  eyes 
are  more  attracted  by  the  glittering  sheen  of  the 
silk  or  satin  than  by  the  rather  heavy  face.     The 
picture  is  well  done — the  background  alone  being 
somewhat  unsatisfactory  because  of  its  monotony. 

1024.    Portrait  of  an  Italian  Ecclesiastic.     Less  in- 
spired than  the  painter's  Tailor  or  Lawyer,  but 


NEER,  AART  VAN  DER  83 

still  a  good  example  of  Moroni,  with  a  sleepy, 
dull  man  for  a  sitter.  Fine  in  the  blacks  and  well 
done  in  the  hands. 

1316.    Portrait  of  an  Italian  Nobleman.     It  is  in  size 

and  style  like  No.  1022,  but  executed  with  more 
simplicity  and  directness,  and  apparently  with 
more  truth  to  fact.  The  figure  stands  well,  but  is 
flat,  and  the  head  and  hands  are  a  little  small  for 
the  height.  Notice  the  sleeves  and  the  painting 
of  the  helmet.  Notice  also  how  true  the  black 
legs  are  in  their  modelling  and  how  the  feet  are 
placed  on  the  floor.  The  broken  column  is  well 
rounded  and  seems  actual  marble. 

13.    Murillo,  Bartolome  Esteban.     The  Holy  Fam- 
.    ily.    A  very  popular  Murillo,  in  his  usual  senti- 
v-  mental  vein,  with  a  sugary  Madonna  and  Child 
and  a  weak  St.  Joseph.     The  lower  part  of  the 
picture  is  fairly  well  drawn,  and  the  colour  is  agree- 
able if  not  distinguished.     The  upper  part  of  the 
picture  is  weak  all  through.     A  late  picture  in  the 
artist's  vapoury  style. 

176.    St.  John  and  the  Lamb.     This  IS  Murillo  at 

his  prettiest,  with  a  sentimentality  worthy  of 
Sassoferrato  and  a  prettiness  of  surface  akin  to 
Van  der  Werff.  It  is  a  picture  that  would  show 
to  quite  as  good  advantage  in  a  coloured  reproduc- 
tion. 

152.  Neer,  Aart  van  der.  Landscape  with  Cattle 
and  Figures.  A  large  and  fine  example  of  Van 
der  Neer,  with  an  effect  of  sunset  light.  The 
figures  are  said  to  be  by  Cuyp.  See  also  the  large 
companion  piece  (No.  732)  and  the  moonlight 
effect  (No.  2536). 


84  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

1107.  Niccolo  da  Foligno  (Alunno).  The  Crucifix- 
ion. A  once  important  triptych  but  now  much 
injured  by  repainting.  It  shows  dramatic  force 
and  much  emotional  feeling.  With  interesting 
early  landscapes. 

579.   Niccolo  di  Pietro  Gerini.     Baptism  of  Christ. 

By  a  Giottesque  painter  possessed  of  some  knowl- 
edge of  nature  in  small  details,  and  of  considerable 
colour  sense.  Notice  the  folds  of  the  drapery  and 
the  largeness  of  the  forms,  as  also  the  semi-nude 
of  Christ,  for  such  knowledge  of  anatomy  as  was 
possessed  at  the  time.  The  predella  below  is  per- 
haps better  in  colour  because  less  retouched  than 
the  larger  triptych. 

2143.    Ochtervelt,  Jacob.     Lady  Standing  at  a  Spinet. 

The  rose-coloured  gown  is  attractive  and  the  figure 
is  well  given.  The  background  is  dark  and  a 
little  flat.  There  is  apparently  an  influence  of 
Pieter  de  Hooch  shown  in  the  picture.  No.  2553 
is  in  the  same  vein. 

Oggiono.     See  Marco  d'Oggiono. 

569.    Orcagna,  Andrea.     Coronation  of  Virgin.    The 

**  Christ  and  the  Madonna  are  in  the  form  of  an 
v/  oval  surrounded  by  angels  and  supported  in 
the  side  panels  by  throngs  of  saints,  all  looking 
up  to  the  central  panel.  This  triptych  with  the 
nine  other  portions  belonging  to  it  makes  up  the 
most  important  altar-piece  by  Orcagna  north  of 
Italy.  It  is,  for  an  early  work,  of  great  beauty 
in  its  composition,  and  still  of  superb  colour.  The 
tones  are  primitive,  simple  to  the  last  degree, 
but  most  harmonious.  The  robes  and  borders 
with  the  haloes  create  a  rich  effect.  The  haloes 


ORCAGNA  85 

are  evidently  tooled,  not  stamped  as  in  later  work. 
The  faces  still  show  Byzantine  influence,  but  the 
chins  are  rounder  and  the  figures  are  not  rigid. 
There  is  also  some  attempt  at  separate  and  dis- 
tinct individualities.  Some  of  the  angels  below 
have  suggestions  of  movement.  The  religious  sen- 
timent of  the  time  is  quite  apparent.  How  very 
pure  this  is  in  the  figures  of  Christ  and  the  Ma- 
donna with  their  white  robes  patterned  in  gold !  A 
magnificent  altar-piece,  but  unfortunately  changed 
somewhat  by  restoration. 

576. The    Three   Marys   at    the    Sepulchre.     The 

*  figures  are  lovely  in  their  purity  of  feeling  and  in 
v/     their  colouring.     The  seated  angel  suggests  what 

Orcagna  knew  about  the  human  form.  The  land- 
scape is  more  mediaeval  than  Giotto,  but  in  per- 
fect accord  with  the  sentiment  of  the  figures. 
The  simplicity  of  the  composition  and  colour  here 
is  most  refreshing.  Note  the  drawing  of  the 
flowers. 

575.   Resurrection.     The    beautiful     white-robed 

*  figure  of  Christ  at  the  top  is  striking  in  both  form 
^   and  colour.     Other  portions  of  the  main  altar- 
piece  (Nos.  570-578),   at  the  sides  and  above, 
should    be    studied.     The    smaller    panels    were 
probably  worked  upon  by  Orcagna's  brothers  and 
pupils,  but  that  does  not  mean  that  they  are 
weak  or  worthless.     They  are  quite  in  the  style 
and  spirit  of  the  central  panels,  and  inferior  to 
them  only  by  comparison.     All  of  these  panels 
have  been  restored. 

581.    St.  John  Evangelist,  St.  John  Baptist,  and  St. 

James.  Three  dignified  figures,  each  filling  its 
panel  well.  There  is  breadth  in  the  draperies, 


86  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

some  careful  drawing  in  the  hands  and  faces,  and 
some  bulk  to  the  bodies.  Notice  as  a  realistic 
little  touch  the  attempt  at  the  veining  in  the  arm 
of  the  Baptist  before  the  large  structure  of  it 
is  well  understood.  The  haloes  are  elaborate. 
Formerly  ascribed  to  Spinello  and  now  to  Orcagna. 
The  attribution  is  still  questionable. 

770.    Oriolo,  Giovanni.     Portrait  of  Lionello  d'Este. 

A  hard  but  very  accurate  profile  of  a  man  of 
much  dignity.  It  is  an  excellent  portrait,  in  the 
general  style  of  Vittore  Pisano,  but  cruder  in  the 
drawing.  Oriolo  is  an  unknown  quantity. 

714.    Orley,  Bernard   van.    Mother  and  Child.    A 

*  lovely  and  very  naive  little  group,  with  a  colouring 
si  of  robes  to  match  the  blue-green  mountains  and 
sky.  What  charm  in  the  figures  and  what  beauty 
in  the  patterned  trees  against  the  deep  sky!  It 
is  a  fine  bit  of  colour.  But  did  Van  Orley  do  it? 
It  seems  too  fine  for  him. 

1466.  Orsi,  Lelio.  The  Walk  to  Emmaus.  This  pic- 
ture has  a  certain  strength  derived  from  forcing 
the  values  of  the  white  in  contrast  to  the  dark 
ground.  The  figures  are  sturdy,  with  good  move- 
ment and  large  drawing. 

669.    Ortolano     (Giovanni    Battista    Benvenuti). 
St.  Sebastian  with   St.   Roch  and  St.  Demetrius. 

The  figures  stand  well  in  a  remarkable  landscape, 
and  they  are  drawn  well  throughout.  Notice  how 
the  texture  of  the  armour  is  given  or  the  ground 
is  painted.  The  picture  has  been  injured  by  its 
transfer  to  canvas  and  by  much  retouching.  The 
painter  to  whom  it  is  attributed  is  one  about 
whom  little  is  known. 


PATINIR  87 

636.  Palma  Vecchio.  Portrait  of  a  Poet.  The  rea- 
*  sons  for  assigning  this  portrait  to  Palma  are  not 

y  so  very  obvious.  It  bears  some  relation  to 
Titian  (though  probably  not  by  him),  as  indicated 
in  the  drawing  of  the  eyes,  the  left  hand,  the 
glove,  the  sleeve.  Also  the  handling  is  like  that 
of  the  Tribute  Money  at  Dresden  (No.  169).  It 
is  more  exact  and  not  so  full,  so  large,  so  universal, 
as  the  Titian  Ariosto,  but  is  in  the  same  vein  and 
with  the  same  dignity  and  nobility  of  spirit. 
Palma  following  Titian  may  have  painted  it.  At 
least  it  is  difficult  to  suggest  a  more  probable 
painter.  It  is  a  fine  portrait.  The  colour  of  the 
sleeves,  the  quality  of  the  white,  the  light  and 
shade,  the  aerial  envelope  are  all  quite  right. 

596.    Palmezzano,  Marco.     Deposition  in  the  Tomb. 

A  hard  piece  of  drawing  with  wooden  figures  and 
sharply  folded  draperies.  Note  the  tin-like  qual- 
ity of  the  flags.  The  colour  is  good  though  the 
sentiment  is  a  little  far-fetched. 

33.  Parmigianino,  Francesco  Mazzola.  Vision  of 
St.  Jerome.  It  has  considerable  stateliness  in  the 
Madonna,  though  the  type  is  a  little  sweet.  A 
good  decorative  panel  by  a  facile  follower  of  Cor- 
reggio.  It  is  not  devoid  of  either  skill  or  intelli- 
gence, but  perhaps  wants  that  spirit  of  sincerity 
without  which  any  art  is  more  or  less  pretentious. 

717.  Patinir,  Joachim.  St.  John  in  Patmos.  At- 
tractive in  its  landscape,  to  which  the  figure  bears 
the  relation  of  a  warm  central  spot.  It  is  not  too 
certainly  by  Patinir.  There  were  several  paint- 
ers doing  landscapes  of  the  Patinir  type.  Com- 
pare this  with  the  other  Patinirs  shown  here. 


58  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

945.    Madonna,    Child,    and   Nun.     This    picture 

seems  to  agree  very  well  with  the  Rest  in  the 
Flight  into  Egypt  (No.  608)  in  the  Berlin  Gallery, 
generally  attributed  to  Patinir.  This  man  and 
his  contemporaries  are  very  much  confused. 
Gerard  David  and  Isenbrandt  are  names  quite 
as  often  tacked  on  such  pictures  as  this.  The 
figures  here  are  said  to  be  by  another  hand.  [Now 
ascribed  to  the  Flemish  School.] 

1082.   The  Visitation.     With  a  tall  stately  figure  of 

the  Madonna  wearing  a  blue  robe,  and  in  a  land- 
scape of  much  beauty.  The  red  robe  is  only  a 
check  upon  the  blue,  and  does  not  help  it  by  con- 
trast, but  both  are  handsomely  done. 

1084.   Flight  into  Egypt.     An  exceptionally  large 

picture  for  Patinir  as  regards  the  figures.  And 
very  good  in  colour.  The  landscape  and  the  fig- 
ure of  the  Madonna  have  not  the  charm  of  several 
pictures  at  Madrid  attributed  to  Patinir  (Nos. 
1615,  1616),  and  lead  one  to  think  that  this  is 
perhaps  some  sort  of  school  piece.  No.  716  in 
this  gallery  seems  a  more  characteristic  work  of 
Patinir. 

1298.    Landscape — River    Scene.      One    may    hesi- 

*  tate  over  the  attribution,  but  the  white  landscape 
is  most  decorative.  Stand  back  in  the  room  and 
see  what  white  light  it  has.  And  what  beautiful 
water!  The  picture  was  once  put  down  to  the 
Venetian  School. 

778.   Pellegrino    da    San    Daniele    (Martino    da 

Udine) .      Virgin  and  Child  with  Sain  ts  and  Donor. 

A  simple  pyramidal  composition  with  good  types 
and  unusually  good  colour.  It  has  been  darkened 


PERUGINO  89 

somewhat  by  time.  The  banner  at  the  back  with 
the  angels  is  a  little  thin,  but  the  rest  of  it  is  very 
good. 

181.    Pettlgino,    Pietro.     Madonna,    Child,    and    St. 

^/  John.  With  Peruginesque  sentiment,  and  a  land- 
scape that  is  just  as  sentimental  as  the  characters 
of  the  Madonna  and  St.  John.  The  colour  is  at- 
tractive and  the  drawing  adequate. 

288.   Virgin  Adoring  Child.     These  are  the  three 

*  principal  portions  of  an  altar-piece  originally 
painted  for  the  Certosa  of  Pavia.  Here  is  the 
X  Umbrian  sentiment  at  its  height  as  shown  in  the 
faces  of  the  Madonna  and  angels.  There  is  no 
passion,  fire,  fury,  or  dramatic  element,  but  merely 
sweetness  of  mood.  Notice  the  dreamy  attitude 
of  St.  Michael  as  he  stands,  listening  perhaps  to 
the  singing  of  angels  in  the  upper  sky.  The  colour 
is  a  little  sharp  in  the  blues,  the  hands  cramped 
in  the  drawing,  the  figures  very  well  indicated. 
With  a  beautiful  lake  and  hills  off  in  the  distance, 
thin,  arrowy  trees,  and  a  wide  sky.  An  excep- 
tionally good  Perugino. 

1075.  The  Virgin,  Child,  St.  Jerome,  and  St.  Fran- 
cis. Perhaps  the  best  piece  of  colour  of  any  of  the 
TV  Peruginos  here,  except  No.  1441,  notwithstand- 
ing it  is  stained,  somewhat  repainted,  and  prob- 
ably done  by  some  one  in  Perugino's  workshop. 
The  landscape  is  very  summary  and  washed-out 
in  appearance  but  spacious.  .4 

1441.    Adoration  of  the  Shepherds.     This  gives  one 

some  idea  of  the  way  Perugino's  work  looked  when 
on  the  wall  for  which  it  was  painted.  It  is  a 
fresco  that  has  been  transferred  to  canvas  and 


90  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

hurt  in  the  transfer.  Very  beautiful  in  decorative 
colour.  Of  course  it  has  the  ever-present  sentiment. 

1431.   (After).    Baptism  of  Christ.    It  is  probably 

a  copy,  or  at  best  a  poor  workshop  piece  emanat- 
ing from  Lo  Spagna  rather  than  Perugino.  Com- 
pare the  crude  drawing  of  the  tree  trunks  with 
those  in  No.  1032. 

727.  Pesellino,  Francesco.  A  Trinita.  This  is  the 
*  centre  of  an  altar-piece  of  which  there  are  other 

V  parts  owned  in  England.  The  figure  of  Christ  is 
well  drawn  for  the  time,  and  the  landscape  gives 
some  hint  of  light  from  the  sky,  as  note  the  light- 
ing of  the  fields.  Much  of  the  work  on  this 
picture  was  done  by  a  hand  other  than  Pesel- 
lino's.  It  is  in  the  style  of  Fra  Filippo. 


Piero  di  Cosimo.     The  Death  of  Procris.     One 

*  of  Piero's  attempts  at  the  classic  and  the  idyllic, 
with  something  to  be  desired  in  the  form  and  in 
the  drawing,  but  with  much  naive  charm  in  the 
conception  and  its  realisation  on  canvas.  The 
hands  and  arms  of  Procris  are  not  the  best,  nor 
the  flowery  mead  the  most  perfect.  Notice  at  the 
back  where  the  terrace  breaks  how  the  painter 
has  made  an  edging  of  plants.  The  birds  and 
animals  are  interesting — even  the  sympathetic  dog 
at  the  right.  Piero  was  interested  in  the  theme 
and  believed  in  it  but  had  not  the  skill  to  tell  the 
tale  more  cunningly.  His  picture  is  a  bit  crude, 
but  it  is  very  frank  and  honest.  See  the  note  on 
the  Botticelli  No.  915  in  this  gallery. 

895.    Portrait  of  a  Warrior.     With  a  view  of  the 

Palazzo  Vecchio  and  the  Loggia  at  Florence  at 
the  back.     A  good  portrait  of  a  sturdy-looking 


PIOMBO,  SEBASTIANO  DEL  91 

man.  It  seems  too  well  drawn,  too  mature,  for 
Piero,  but  possibly  it  is  by  him. 

03.    Pinturicchio,  Bernardo.    Madonna  and  Child. 

A  slight  and  rather  pretty  Pinturicchio  with 
bright  colouring  and  an  attractive  landscape.  The 
sentiment  is  somewhat  fragile.  The  picture  has 
been  restored. 

11.    Return    of  Ulysses   to  Penelope.     As  reality 

it  is  unbelievable  in  the  types  and  the  spirit  of 
N  it;  but  as  graceful  story-telling  in  colour,  it  is 
very  acceptable.  A  fine  ship  and  sea  in  the  dis- 
tance. Notice  how  the  cutwater  of  the  ship  breaks 
the  waves.  A  fresco  transferred  to  canvas. 

50.    Piombo,  Sebastiano  del.     Holy  Family.    This 
"       gives  perhaps  a  better  idea  of  Sebastiano  than 
s/      the  large  No.  1  because  though  less  important  it 
is  less  injured.     The  Madonna  type  is  Michel- 
angelesque,  as  also  the  sleeves,  the  head-dress,  the 
broken  lines  of  the  Child's  figure.     It  is  perhaps  a 
little  too  contorted,  too  twisted  and  tragic  in 
mood,  but  it  has  some  power  about  it  and  is  skil- 
fully composed.     The  hands,   arms,   and  heads 
have  been  somewhat  rubbed. 

1.  The  Raising  of  Lazarus.  The  picture  still 

"  shows  good  drawing  though  it  has  been  much 

'^  hurt  by  its  transfer  to  canvas,  cleaning,  and  re- 
painting. It  has  become  blackened  in  the  trees, 
the  foreground  shadows,  the  sky.  The  figures 
are  all  a  little  academic  and  melodramatic  in 
action  though  quite  fine  as  types  and  having  beau- 
tifully drawn  robes.  A  composition  inspired  by 
Michelangelo  according  to  Vasari.  There  is  lit- 
tle charm  or  loveliness  about  it,  but  a  great  deal 


92  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

of  that  semi-scientific  art  that  came  to  maturity 
in  Rome  with  Michelangelo  and  Raphael.  The 
work  is  important  in  the  same  sense  as  Raphael's 
Transfiguration.  It  is  forceful,  powerful,  clev- 
erly knit  together,  quite  rightly  drawn,  and  really 
above  criticism  technically.  It  lacks  only  one 
thing  and  that — soul.  The  colour  is  half  Venetian, 
with  repeated  notes  of  green,  red,  and  white.  The 
background  represents  a  Roman  landscape  along 
the  Tiber.  Originally  painted  for  Cardinal  Giulio 
de'  Medici,  who  ordered  Raphael's  Transfiguration 
also  and  was  not  certain  which  picture  he  liked 
the  better. 

24.    An  Italian  Lady  as  St.  Agatha.     The  colour 

is  cold,  the  shadows  sooty  about  the  face  and 
hands,  the  surface  too  glassy.  It  is  not  a  pleas- 
ing picture.  The  arrangement  of  the  head-dress 
and  the  pose  of  the  hand  and  arm  are  a  bit  stilted. 

776.  Pisanello  (Vittore  Pisano).  St.  Anthony  and 
St.  George.  A  picture  that  has  suffered  greatly 
by  being  entirely  repainted  and  regilded.  At 
present  it  is  in  a  new  frame  that  asserts  itself 
violently.  It  must  have  been  very  beautiful  at 
one  time,  and  has  a  very  beautiful  design  even 
now,  but  its  surface  is  badly  damaged.  Compare 
it  with  No.  1436  near  by  for  the  difference  in  colour 
and  tone.  Its  workmanship  suggests  the  medal- 
list in  Pisanello. 

1436.    Vision  of  St.  Eustace.     It  is  full  of  interest, 

*  from  the  horse  and  his  trappings  and  the  dark, 
rocky  hillside  to  the  saint,  the  figure  hanging  on 
the  crucifix,  and  the  surrounding  animals.  But 
it  lacks  unity.  The  animals  are  spotty,  scattered 
about,  unrelated  to  each  other.  There  is  perhaps 


POLLAJUOLO  93 

some  German  influence  showing  in  the  saint  and 
also  in  the  animals.  The  work  is  almost  too 
minute  and  detailed  for  Italy  uninfluenced  by 
northern  art.  Pisanello  at  Verona  could  not  have 
been  unacquainted  with  Augsburg  and  Nurem- 
berg work.  What  a  pathetic  little  figure  on  the 
cross!  And  what  a  horse  and  rider!  The  land- 
scape rises  up  flat,  and  at  the  top  is  a  lake  with 
water  fowl.  A  remarkable  early  study  of  nature. 

28.    Pollajuolo,  Antonio.     Apollo  and  Daphne.     A 

beautiful  bit  of  colour  and  realistic  drawing.  The 
/  spirit  of  it  is  quite  idyllic,  even  romantic,  for  a 
master  who  was  devoted  to  drawing  the  nude  in 
motion.  It  is  also  painted  with  some  gusto  for 
a  Florentine  painter  if  we  may  believe  the  present 
surface.  A  thoroughly  fine  little  panel. 

)2.    Martyrdom    of   St.    Sebastian.     The   promi- 

*  nence  of  the  figures  in  the  foreground  of  the  pic- 
/  ture  is  usually  disturbing  to  the  average  student 
v  at  first  sight.  The  figures  are  patterned  on 
the  landscape  instead  of  in  it,  which  creates 
the  disturbing  impression.  Look  at  the  figures 
individually  as  superb  pieces  of  drawing  and 
for  the  sake  of  their  outlines  and  modellings, 
especially  the  two  bending  archers  in  front.  This 
was  the  realism  of  the  nude  at  that  time,  and  it 
is  given  with  knowledge  and  truth — especially  the 
truth  of  muscular  strain,  action,  motion.  What 
legs  and  feet,  what  arms,  what  torsos,  and  what 
heads!  The  figure  of  the  saint  is  superb  in  the 
modelling  of  the  torso;  the  four  standing  archers 
are  less  fine.  And  again,  what  colour  in  the  cos- 
tumes and  the  ruddy  flesh !  When  you  have  wearied 
of  the  figures,  look  beyond  them  to  the  prancing 


94  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

horse  at  the  left,  at  the  high  colour  in  the  banner, 
and  beyond,  at  the  fine  bit  of  Roman  ruin  and  the 
wonderful  Arno  valley  landscape  with  the  flowing 
river.  The  picture  will  bear  long  study.  Antonio 
probably  designed  it  and  Piero  possibly  worked 
upon  the  feebler  parts  of  it. 

585.    Pollajuolo,     School    of.      Portrait    of    a     Lady. 

*      This  was  probably  always  a  sharp,  thin  profile — 

more  of  a  silhouette  than  a  modelled  surface — but 

^  it  has  not  been  improved  by  the  drastic  scrubbing 
and  rubbing  it  has  undergone  during  the  cen- 
turies. Fine  in  outline  drawing,  in  forcefulness  of 
character,  in  the  beauty  of  the  costume,  and  the 
colour  of  the  background.  What  a  wonderful  head- 
dress of  pearls  I  The  painter  was  not  far  removed 
from  the  painter  of  No.  758  in  this  gallery.  Once 
attributed  to  Piero  della  Francesca. 

1009.  Potter,  Paulus.  The  Old  Grey  Hunter.  A  very 
good  Potter — in  fact,  entirely  too  good  for  his 
brush.  The  chances  are  that  it  was  done  by 
Pieter  Verbeecq.  Compare  it  with  No.  611  by 
Verbeecq  in  The  Hague  Museum.  The  manner 
and  method  are  identical.  [Since  this  note  was 
written,  but  before  its  publication,  Dr.  Bredius 
has  arrived  at  a  similar  conclusion  in  the  Burling- 
ton Magazine  for  June,  1913.] 

2583.  Cattle  in  a  Stormy  Landscape.  This  is  ap- 
parently a  genuine  enough  Potter,  but  it  is  dif- 
ferent painting  and  a  different  palette  from  No. 
1009.  As  a  picture  it  is  not  remarkable  excej 
for  its  hardness  and  general  dryness  of  handling. 

1008.  Potter,  Pieter.  Stag  Hunt.  In  this  landscaj 
the  distances  and  the  sky  are  much  better  thj 
the  trees  and  the  niggled  foliage  of  the  for 


PREDIS,  AMBROGIO  DA  95 

ground.  Of  the  two  deer,  note  the  truth  of  draw- 
ing and  movement  in  the  doe.  Ascribed  to  the 
father  (and  master)  of  Paul  Potter  as  formerly  to 
Paul  Potter  himself. 

31.    Poussin,      Caspar.      Landscape     with     Figures. 

This  picture  is  in  Gaspar's  mannered  style  with 
heavy  formal  foliage,  a  dark  foreground,  a  dark 
upper  sky,  and  a  light  background.  It  is  the 
Poussin  convention,  but  not  devoid  of  style  and 
some  power.  The  pattern  of  light  and  shade  with 
colour  is  handsome.  See  the  variation  of  the  con- 
vention in  No.  1159. 

62.  Poussin,  Nicolas.  Bacchanalian  Dance.  None 
of  the  Poussins  in  this  gallery  are  completely  repre- 
sentative of  the  man.  They  are  hot  in  flesh 
colour  though  well  enough  drawn  and  grouped. 
The  academic  quality  of  his  work  (the  nymph  in 
blue  at  the  left)  is  always  a  bit  wearisome.  His 
best  pictures  are  in  the  Louvre  at  Paris. 

1661  \  Predis,  Ambrogio  da.     Two  Angels.    These  are 

1662  /  the  wings  of  the  altar-piece  of  the  Madonna   of 

the  Rocks — the  wings  done  by  Ambrogio  and 
the  altar-piece  itself  supposed  to  be  his  copy  after 
Leonardo.  The  angel  No.  1661  may  be  used  for 
comparison  with  the  Madonna  in  the  matter  of 
light  and  shade,  sootiness  of  flesh,  and  depth  of 
colour.  The  drapery  in  both  angels  is  uneasy, 
the  hands  and  feet  are  ill-drawn,  the  figures  not 
very  convincing  under  their  swirling  robes. 

2251.    Portrait  of  Bona   of   Savoy.     The  canvas  is 

now  nearly  done  for  so  far  as  form  is  concerned, 
but  there  is  enough  pigment  remaining  to  sug- 
gest a  picture  of  one-time  beauty.  What  colour 
it  still  has!  And  what  a  Renaissance  type  of 


96  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

woman!  The  look  of  the  canvas  suggests  a  pic- 
ture painted  with  wax  as  a  medium. 

695.  Previtali,  Andrea.  Madonna  and  Child  Seated. 
Much  in  the  style  of  No.  2500,  and  not  materially 
different  from  the  supposed  imitation  (No.  1409), 
at  one  time  assigned  to  Cordelle  Agii,  with  which 
it  may  be  compared.  All  of  them  are  indifferent 
works  of  a  second-rate  painter,  showing  weak  sen- 
timent and  porcelain-like  surfaces. 

2500.    Virgin  and  Child.     A  comparison  with  No. 

1409,  once  assigned  to  Cordelle  Agii,  will  perhaps 
establish  this  picture  as  the  firmer  in  drawing 
and  a  trifle  more  decisive  in  colouring  of  the  two. 
As  for  the  types,  there  is  no  variation  of  impor- 
tance. It  was  thought  by  Crowe  and  Cavalca- 
selle  that  Previtali  and  Cordelle  Agii  were  one 
and  the  same  person,  and  that  opinion  has  been 
generally  accepted. 

713.    Prevost,  Jan.      Virgin  and   Child  in  a   Garden. 

*      Very  lovely  in  sentiment  and  very  tender  in  its 

^/         painting  of  the  hair,  the  flowers,  the  robes,  the 

landscape.     A  charming  picture  also   in  colour, 

light,  and  air.    Notice  how  beautifully  the  pot  with 

its  flowers  is  drawn  and  the  houses  at  the  back  are 

put  in. 

213.  Raphael  Sanzio.  Vision  of  a  Knight.  A  boy- 
ish Raphael,  more  interesting  as  history  than  as 
art,  though  done  with  considerable  knowledge 
and  skill.  And  in  it  Raphael  already  has  repose 
of  manner.  The  sketch  for  it  is  shown  below. 
1171.  Madonna  degli  Ansidei.  A  famous  early 

**  Raphael  with  some  fine  drawing  in  the  St.  John 
Baptist  and  some  well-handled  drapery  in  the 
St.  Nicholas.  The  Madonna  is  rather  porcelain- 


RAPHAEL  SANZIO  97 

faced  and  the  Child  is  just  a  little  heavy.  It  is  a 
balanced  pyramidal  composition  with  space-filling 
carried  out  by  the  aid  of  the  upright  baldacchino 
(a  frail,  thin  structure)  and  the  white  arch.  The 
white  arch  is  entirely  out  of  tone  with  the  figures 
and  the  baldacchino  and  separates  them  from 
the  landscape  to  which  they  should  be  related. 
In  other  words,  it  cuts  off  the  foreground  from 
the  background  and  hurts  the  unity  of  the  pic- 
ture. The  colour  in  the  St.  John  is  very  good. 
Somewhat  injured  by  retouching,  but  never 
more  than  a  youthful  Raphael  and  not  indicative 
of  his  great  power  as  draughtsman  or  composer. 

168.  St.  Catherine  of  Alexandria.  A  graceful  fig- 
ure, academically  draped,  with  a  pretty  repeti- 
y  tion  of  the  bent  right  arm  in  the  drapery  below. 
The  wheel  is  also  repeated  in  the  body  and  leg 
draperies.  The  hands  and  neck  are  ill-drawn  and 
the  landscape  is  not  sketchy  but  careless,  or  by 
another  hand.  The  landscape  is  the  same  in 
handling  as  in  the  Colonna  Madonna  (No.  248) 
at  Berlin. 

744.  -  —Madonna,  Child,  and  St.  John.  (The  Gar- 
/  vagh  Raphael).  A  Raphaelesque  group  of  pyram- 
idal form,  well  knit  together,  and  graceful.  The 
colour  is  a  little  sweet  in  the  blue  and  the  surface 
has  been  prettified  by  retouching.  The  picture  is 
almost  certainly  by  Giulio  Romano,  not  Raphael. 

5069.    Madonna   of  the  Tower.      This  is  the  latest 

*       of  the  Raphael  Madonnas  in  this  gallery,  but  by 

Y.    no  means  the  least  good.     The  group  is  finely 

composed,  well  held  together,  with  a  landscape 

that  is  open,  full  of  air  and  light,  quite  believable. 

The  action   of   the  Child,  pressing   against   the 


)8  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

mother,  the  holding  of  the  Child  by  the  Madonna, 
the  drapery,  are  all  very  good.  As  for  colour,  it 
is  now  mellow,  foxy,  and  pleasing,  probably  as 
a  result  of  the  drastic  scrubbing,  repainting, 
and  varnishing  the  surface  has  undergone.  The 
picture  is  much  injured,  and  no  one  can  now  say 
who  painted  it,  but  the  design  is  Raphaelesque 
and  the  general  effect  is  very  good. 

27.   Pope  Julius  II.     There  are  three  versions  of 

this  portrait,  of  which  the  ones  in  the  Uffizi  and 
\jf  Pitti  are  perhaps  the  more  satisfactory.  See  the 
comment  under  the  Uffizi  and  Pitti  Gallery  notes. 
That  will  answer  for  this  version.  A  fine  portrait 
and  worthy  of  careful  study,  be  it  original,  replica, 
or  copy.  The  word  "copy  "  should  not  discourage 
one. 

2919.   Procession  to  Calvary.     It  is  part  of  the  pre- 

della  of  the  St.  Anthony  of  Padua  Madonna  in 
the  Morgan  Collection.  If  done  by  Raphael  in 
1505  or  at  any  other  time  it  was  carelessly  done. 
Look  at  the  drawing  of  the  first  horse,  the  first 
man  pulling  on  the  rope,  the  figure  of  Christ.  All 
the  hands  are  poorly  done.  The  colour  is  not  at 
all  remarkable.  The  only  part  of  the  panel  that 
seems  possible  for  Raphael  is  the  group  of  women 
at  the  left. 

1423.  Ravesteyn,  Jan  Anthonisz.  Portrait  of  a 
Lady.  Somewhat  too  smooth  in  the  surfaces  but 
done  with  accurate  drawing  and  simple  com- 
position. Some  of  the  hardness  of  the  flesh  and 
the  white  collar  is  possibly  due  to  cleaning.  [Now 
(1913)  given  to  Jan  de  Bray]. 

672.    Rembrandt  van  Ryn.     Portrait  of  Himself.    A 

^        portrait  of  Rembrandt,  done  with  a  brush  that 


REMBRANDT  99 

we  do  not  recognise,  but  with  a  good  enough 
effect  in  the  drawing  and  modelling.  The  eyes, 
the  bulbous  nose,  the  mouth  with  the  slight 
moustache  above  it,  the  chin,  the  neck,  the  hand, 
the  figure  are  perhaps  right  enough.  The  hat 
and  the  shadow  of  it  upon  the  brow,  the  hair  and 
the  ears  are  again  fairly  well  done  except  for  an 
apparent  timidity  in  the  doing  of  them.  The 
costume  is  smoothly  painted  and  deep  in  its 
tones  of  colour,  in  its  shadow,  in  its  local  hue. 
The  shadows  under  the  chin  are  luminous  and  the 
envelope  of  the  figure  quite  apparent.  The  whole 
body  stands  in  and  has  air  about  it.  But  all  this 
might  be  true  of  a  Rembrandt  copy.  We  miss 
the  dash  and  verve  of  the  Rembrandt  handling 
as  shown  in  even  earlier  works  like  Nos.  775  and 
850.  And  we  miss  the  life.  Compare  this  pic- 
ture with  No.  850  and  No.  775  and  see  how 
flat  and  wanting  in  life  it  is,  as  though  it  had 
been  done  from  a  photograph  after  death.  The 
handling  and  the  hand  of  Rembrandt — are  they 
here?  Or  are  we  looking  at  a  mere  copy?  Go 
over  the  picture  carefully,  inch  by  inch,  and  the 
timid  handling,  the  smooth  and  lifeless  surface, 
will  bespeak  the  copy.  You  will  notice  this  pains- 
taking timidity  in  the  drawing  of  the  eyelids,  the 
nose,  the  cheeks,  the  ear,  the  outline  of  the  hat 
and  cloak,  the  edging  of  the  white  undershirt  at 
the  throat.  You  will  notice  it  further  in  the  paint- 
ing of  the  wrinkles  around  the  eyes,  the  smooth 
chin,  the  uncertain  ear,  the  small  brush-work  in 
the  moustache  and  hair,  the  fur,  the  coat  collar. 
Compare  these  features  one  by  one  with  No. 
850  hanging  near  by  and  you  cannot  fail  to  see 
the  difference  between  them.  Who  painted  the 


100  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

picture  may  never  be  known,  but  it  may  be 
affirmed  with  considerable  certainty  that  the  sur- 
face now  shows  not  one  touch  of  Rembrandt's 
brush. 

The  signature  of  this  picture,  "Rembrandt  F. 
1640,"  is  also  a  copy  of  the  Rembrandt  signature, 
and  is  fairer,  smoother,  more  careful  than  an 
original.  Below  this  signature,  in  the  same  copyist 
hand,  is  the  word  "  Conterfeyct."  There  has  been 
an  attempt  at  rubbing  it  out  but  it  still  shows. 
This  word  is  neither  Latin  nor  English,  but  corrupt 
old  French,  otherwise  spelled  "contrefaict"  and 
"contrefait."  It  is  the  past  participle  of  "con- 
tre-faire,"  which  means  to  counterfeit,  to  imitate, 
to  copy,  to  reproduce.  Presumably  it  has  been 
heretofore  interpreted  on  this  picture  in  the 
Shakespearian  sense  to  mean  a  counterfeit  pre- 
sentment or  likeness  of  Rembrandt's  personality, 
whereas  the  word  should  be  interpreted  as  mean- 
ing a  counterfeit  or  copy  of  a  Rembrandt  picture. 
The  copyist  put  it  there  as  a  frank  statement  that 
his  picture  was  a  copy  and  not  the  original.  In 
connection  with  this  old  French  word  and  a  cer- 
tain French  look  about  the  workmanship  of  the 
picture,  it  is  interesting  to  know  from  the  cat- 
alogue that  the  picture  came  from  the  collection 
of  General  Dupont  in  Paris  and  was  purchased 
from  his  heirs,  the  Richemonts,  in  1861.  If  we 
choose  to  click  these  links  together,  we  may  make 
out  a  prima-facie  case  to  the  effect  that  this  por- 
trait of  Rembrandt  is — what  its  internal  evidence 
indicates — an  old  French  copy  of  some  now  lost 
original. 

850.   Man's  Portrait.     This  portrait  is  done  with 

*      much  firmness  and  force,  not  only  in  the  modelling 


REMBRANDT  101 

of  the  face,  but  in  the  hair,  the  moustache,  the 
collar,  the  chain.  What  beautiful  eyes — what 
piercing  eyes!  And  what  a  forehead  in  its  fleshy 
quality!  It  is  like  the  forehead  of  the  Coppenol 
at  Cassel.  The  picture  is  the  most  pronounced 
early  Rembrandt  in  the  gallery  and  should  be 
used  as  a  criterion  of  Rembrandt's  style  during 
his  grey  period.  See  the  notes  on  The  Hague  Gal- 
lery under  "Rembrandt"  for  the  different  Rem- 
brandt styles;  also  the  notes  on  the  Hermitage 
and  Berlin  galleries  under  the  same  name.  This 
portrait  is  cleaned  a  bit  too  much,  but  still  has 
great  life  about  it. 

775.    Portrait   of  an  Old  Lady.     A  famous  Rem- 

**  brandt — famous  for  its  characterisation  of  an  old 
^  lady  who  has  lived  long,  suffered  much,  and  shows 
both  age  and  suffering  in  her  face.  It  is  the  face 
of  the  very  old,  with  wrinkled  brow,  flabby  cheeks, 
trembling  mouth  and  chin,  and  eyes  which,  if  one 
looks  at  them  long  enough,  will  seem  filled  with 
tears.  A  pitiful  and  yet  a  noble  face,  showing  the 
great  humanity  of  Rembrandt  perhaps  better  than 
any  other  portrait  he  ever  painted.  It  has  some- 
thing in  common  with  all  the  world,  and  every  one 
can  feel  sympathy  with  it.  That  alone  indicates 
Rembrandt's  grasp  of  the  large  universal  truths  of 
life,  and  suggests  why  he  is  placed  among  geniuses 
of  the  Shakespeare-Goethe  type.  The  picture  is 
technically  quite  perfect  save  for  the  unusually 
dark  shadow  under  the  ruff,  which  has  probably  be- 
come dark  through  an  underbasing  working  to  the 
surface.  The  black  is  not  on  the  ruff,  but  shows 
through  it,  and  it  also  shows  through  on  the  left  side, 
which  is  in  full  light  and  has  no  shadow.  Other- 
wise it  is  a  very  perfect  ruff.  And  notice  the 


102  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

superb  quality  of  the  linen  in  the  cap — its  trans- 
parency in  the  side  "wings"  of  it,  its  whiteness 
at  the  top.  The  whole  face  is  strongly  modelled. 
The  outline  of  the  cheek — how  it  wavers,  but 
how  absolutely  it  wavers  as  the  painter  wished 
it  to!  Do  you  think  a  painter  drawing  like  that 
could  at  any  time  have  drawn  so  timidly  as  the  face 
in  No.  672  indicates?  In  the  painter's  grey  period. 

190.  A  Jewish  Rabbi.  A  portrait  probably  done 

*  in  Rembrandt's  golden  period — done  with  a 

V  strong  suggestion  of  the  meagre  face,  the  timor- 
ous spirit,  and  the  mild  manner  of  the  persecuted 
Jew.  It  is  full  of  pathos  and  feeling  and  has  a 
world  of  sadness  about  it.  The  face  is  well 
modelled  with  the  hose  and  cheeks  just  emerging 
from  the  shadow — the  shadow  of  the  hat  so 
luminously  thrown  across  the  forehead  and  the 
brows.  What  a  perfect  velvet  hat!  What  blacks 
and  what  quality  they  have!  The  figure  is  a 
little  lost  in  the  mystery  of  the  ground.  Some 
things  about  it  suggest  another  hand  than  that  of 
Rembrandt,  but  the  spirit  and  quality  of  it  are 
decidedly  Rembrandtesque. 

1674.   A  Burgomaster.     This  is  a  very  different  pic- 

*  ture  from  No.  190,  and  while  done  with  some  free- 
dom in  the  face,  is  blackish,  uncertain,  and  sketchy 
in  the  hands.  The  forehead  is  well  modelled  as 
are  also  the  eyes,  nose,  and  mouth.  The  face  is 
in  full  light,  with  delicate  shadows  below  the 
brows  and  on  the  left  cheek.  Rather  rich  in  colour 
of  a  golden-brown  tinge,  but  not  Rembrandt's 
golden-brown.  It  is  that  of  Nicolas  Maes  fol- 
lowing Rembrandt.  The  portrait  agrees  fairly 
well  with  that  of  the  architect  at  Cassel  (No. 


REMBRANDT  103 

246),  put  down  to  Rembrandt,  but  again  by 
Maes.  The  Maes  portrait  at  The  Hague  (No. 
90)  seems  to  point  to  the  London  and  the  Cassel 
pictures  being  both  by  him.  Even  the  small 
detail  of  the  swollen  vein  on  the  back  of  the  hand 
is  repeated  in  all  three  of  the  portraits.  Besides,  if 
you  have  good  eyes  and  patience,  you  can  make 
out  a  slight  family  resemblance  between  this  por- 
trait and  the  old  woman  across  the  room,  No. 
1675,  put  down  to  Rembrandt,  but  which  is  surely 
another  Maes — Maes  in  his  early  imitation  of 
Rembrandt,  as  No.  1674  is  his  later  imitation  of 
Rembrandt. 

243.    Portrait  of  an  Old  Man.    Here  is  a  decidedly 

*  strong  face,  drawn  with  some  show  of  power  as 
y^  well  as  keen  perception.  The  modelling  is  fairly 
good,  though  the  head  above  the  temple  sinks  in, 
and  the  lower  jaw  is  to  be  guessed  at.  The  gen- 
eral result,  however,  is  effective.  The  man  is  alive 
as  regards  the  head.  The  joining  of  the  head  to 
the  body  is  not  too  realistic,  and  the  body  itself 
is  lost  in  shadow.  The  hands  are  not  convincing, 
nor  are  they  Rembrandtesque.  Nor  is  the  colour 
like  Rembrandt's  colour,  nor  the  shadows  like 
Rembrandt's  shadows.  The  surface  is  tortured, 
rasped  with  a  wire-edged  brush,  kneaded,  thumbed, 
amended.  This,  we  are  given  to  understand,  is 
Rembrandtesque,  because  Rembrandt's  hand  is 
said  to  have  failed  in  his  later  years.  But  how 
are  we  to  distinguish  between  Rembrandt's  inef- 
fective handling  as  an  old  man  and  the  ineffec- 
tive handling  of  his  pupils?  What  prevents  any 
thumbed  and  gummed  canvas  of  the  school  being 
assigned  to  Rembrandt  himself?  And  did  Rem- 
brandt's hand  fail  in  the  large  essential  of  form, 


104  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

light,  air,  envelope?  We  have  the  Syndics  and 
the  Jewish  Bride  at  Amsterdam,  the  Homer  at 
The  Hague,  to  deny  it.  And  yet  it  is  impossible 
to  say  with  certainty  that  Rembrandt  did  not  do 
this  picture.  It  is  unlike  him  in  many  ways.  It 
is  very  likely  by  the  hand  that  did  No.  221  in 
this  gallery. 
221.  Portrait  of  Himself.  This  shows  Rem- 

*  brandt  as  an  old  man — older  than  fifty-three,  the 
age  indicated  by  the  date  of  the  picture.     The 
face  is  hot  in  colour,  flabby  in  the  flesh,  dull  in  the 
eyes,  and  not  very  firm  in  the  chin.     It  is  apparent 
that  the  painter  is  not  too  sure  of  his  touch.     His 
brush  is  staggering  a  bit  and  returns  again  and 
again  to  better  what  it  failed  to  do  at  the  first 
stroke.     The  result  is  the  kneaded  and  thumbed, 
the  mealy  quality  of  the  surface,  the  hot  colouring, 
the  foxy-hued  dress.     But  there  is  luminosity  in 
the  shadows,  and  the  painter  surrounds  his  figure 
with  air.     And  what  humanity  there  is  in  this 
picture!    What  a  lifetime  is  written  in  the  face! 
It  is  a  fine  portrait.     Did  Rembrandt  do  it?    Who 
can  say?     It  is  quite  good  enough  for  him,  but 
the  colour  and  the  hands  seem  hardly  his.     Then, 
too,  there  is  the  portrait  in  the  Louvre  (No.  2555), 
done  at  about  the  same  time,  but  showing  an 
entirely  different  point  of  view  and  different  han- 
dling.    Could  or  did  Rembrandt  see  himself  so 
differently  in  the  mirror?    Or  is  the  different  point 
of  view  that  of  two  Rembrandt  pupils,  painting 
either   Rembrandt  himself  or   the  studio  model 
whose  face  appears  so  often  in  Rembrandtesque 
pictures? 

51.    Portrait   of  a   Jew  Merchant.     After  study- 

*  ing  the  other  portraits  by  Rembrandt  in  this  gal- 


REMBRANDT  105 

lery,  and  thinking  that  perhaps  we  understand  the 
style  of  Rembrandt,  we  come  up  to  this  picture 
and  receive  something  of  a  shock.  It  is  a  good 
picture,  even  a  strong  one,  but — .  Is  that  Rem- 
brandt's light  and  shade?  Is  that  leathery  flesh 
of  the  same  quality  (not  kind)  as  we  have  been 
looking  at  in  the  other  pictures?  Did  he  do  that 
vague  cap  with  that  fur  or  feather  in  it,  that 
prettily  picked-out  black  sleeve,  those  large  square 
hands?  Is  that  pit  of  blackness  back  of  the 
figure  Rembrandt's  wonderful  atmospheric  en- 
velope? And  is  that  hot,  foxy  colouring  consonant 
with  the  Rembrandt  period  that  might  have  pro- 
duced the  sleeve?  The  Rembrandt  authorities 
answer  "Yes"  to  these  queries.  What  use  to 
contradict  them? 

575.    Portrait  of  an    Old  Lady.     This   is  a    strong 

portrait — a  rather  distinguished  portrait — done 
in  the  Rembrandt  manner,  pose,  and  costume, 
and  with  his  background,  though  here  somewhat 
darkened.  And  rather  positively  done,  too;  done 
with  some  spirit.  The  only  trouble  with  it  is 
that  this  spirit  and  the  drawing  and  handling 
are  not  those  of  Rembrandt.  There  is  a  certain 
pinched  look  in  the  face  and  figure  that  comes  not 
from  the  age  of  the  sitter,  but  from  the  pinched 
and  tight  drawing  of  a  man  like  Nicolas  Maes. 
This  is  not  only  apparent  in  the  cheeks,  mouth, 
and  chin,  but  is  seen  in  the  tell-tale  hands — the 
right  one  larger  than  the  left — with  their  ac- 
cented red  knuckles  and  joints.  Compare  them 
with  the  hands  in  the  Maes  here,  No.  1247,  espe- 
cially the  hand  in  that  picture  resting  on  the  table, 
and  you  will  see  the  same  effect  of  drawing.  Also 
compare  the  eyes,  not  only  for  the  blackish  shad- 


106  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

ows  about  them,  but  for  the  low  line  of  the  lower 
lids — quite  different  from  the  lower  lids  of  any 
Rembrandt  in  the  gallery — an  earmark  of  Maes. 
Note  also  the  darkness  of  the  shadow  across  the 
ruffs.  This  darkness  is  not,  as  in  No.  775,  some 
blackness  that  has  worked  through  from  below, 
but  a  brown-black  painted  on  top  of  the  white. 
And  above  all,  note  the  handling  in  the  hair,  the 
face,  the  hands,  and  the  dress.  Compare  this 
again  with  No.  1247 — not  the  best  Maes  for  com- 
parison, but  the  best  we  have  at  hand.  This 
handling  is  found  only  in  pictures  by  Maes.  You 
may  see  it  in  the  portrait  No.  368  in  the  Brussels 
Gallery,  there  put  down  to  Rembrandt,  but  really 
by  Maes,  and  still  again,  but  smoother  in  finish, 
at  the  Budapest  Gallery  (No.  369).  This  Na- 
tional Gallery  portrait  is  a  good  one  and  much 
more  interesting  as  a  Maes  following  Rembrandt 
than  as  a  Rembrandt  in  decline. 

237.   Portrait  of  a  Woman.     Rembrandt  at  least 

had  skill  enough  to  draw  a  mouth  correctly  and 
place  it  properly  under  the  nose,  which  the  painter 
of  this  picture  had  not.  And  he  knew  how  to 
place  a  figure  on  the  canvas  rightly,  which  this 
painter  did  not.  The  chances  are  that  Rem- 
brandt never  saw  the  work.  It  simply  confounds 
confusion  to  attribute  such  work  to  him.  The 
hands  alone  do  not  admit  of  its  being  by  Rem- 
brandt. Strangely  enough  this  picture  is  signed 
and  dated  1666,  and  is  one  of  the  latest  of  the 
painter's  works,  yet  how  does  it  happen  that  it 
does  not  show  the  fumbled  and  kneaded  surface 
that  we  see  in  No.  221  painted  about  the  same 
time?  Did  Rembrandt  fumble  when  it  pleased 
him,  and  paint  easily  and  smoothly  when  it 


REMBRANDT  107 

pleased  him,  or  do  his  critics  shift  their  premises 
when  it  is  necessary  to  "identify"  another  Rem- 
brandt? This  picture  was  probably  painted  by 
Bernaert  Fabritius — a  Rembrandt  follower.  It 
agrees  with  his  work  at  Frankfort  and  Darmstadt, 
and  disagrees  with  Rembrandt's  work  anywhere 
and  everywhere. 

Portrait  of  a  Capuchin  Friar.     There  IS  no 

internal  evidence — that  is,  from  the  picture  itself 
— that  this  portrait  came  from  Rembrandt's 
easel.  The  colour,  drawing,  handling,  background 
are  all  foreign  to  him.  It  is  possibly  by  some 
one  of  his  followers,  but  even  that  may  be  doubted. 
The  picture  illustrates  the  prevalent  tendency 
to  accept  anything  dark  in  shadow,  heavy  in 
facture,  sombre  in  type,  or  generally  speaking 
Rembrandtesque  in  character,  to  Rembrandt  him- 
self. Fifty  years  ago  half  the  Aspertinis,  Mannis, 
and  Pinturicchios  were  Raphaels,  all  the  Bot- 
ticinis,  Sellajos,  and  Amico  di  Sandros  were 
Botticellis,  almost  all  the  Carianis  and  Romani- 
nos  were  Giorgiones,  and  many  Solarios,  Boltraf- 
fios,  and  Luinis  were  accepted  as  Leonardos. 
Happily  the  close  study  of  Italian  art  since  then 
has  led  to  more  discrimination  and  differentiation. 
But  painting  north  of  the  Alps  as  regards  Rem- 
brandt, Rubens,  Van  Dyck,  Holbein,  Diirer — to 
mention  only  the  prominent  names — is  in  a  con- 
dition similar  to  that  of  Italy  half  a  century  ago. 
Any  and  all  work  with  even  a  superficial  resem- 
blance to  Van  Dyck  or  Rubens  is  put  down 
under  the  name  of  the  master.  As  for  Rem- 
brandt, the  work  of  a  dozen  pupils  is  given  to 
him,  to  say  nothing  about  his  followers  and  imi- 
tators. All  the  important  Eeckhout  and  Fabri- 


108  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

tius  pictures  are  under  his  name.  Some  poor 
wretched  work  of  theirs  is  still  left  to  them,  and 
we  are  confronted  with  this  as  the  measure  of 
their  ability.  We  are  asked:  "Where  did  you 
ever  see  an  Eeckhout  as  fine  as  the  Woman 
Bathing  (No.  54)  in  this  gallery ?"  Obviously 
no  such  pictures  exist  under  Eeckhout's  name. 
They  have  all  been  taken  from  him  and  put 
under  Rembrandt.  But  luckily  some  decent  work 
of  other  pupils  is  still  under  their  own  names, 
such  as  the  Backers  at  Berlin  (No.  1640),  Darm- 
stadt (No.  369),  and  the  Wallace  Collection 
(No.  89),  the  Bols  at  Munich  (No.  338)  and 
Frankfort  (No.  184),  the  Flincks  at  Berlin  (No. 
813s),  Amsterdam  (No.  926A),  and  the  Wallace 
Collection  (No.  78).  One  may  assert  with  some 
positiveness  that  these  cited  examples  are  better 
than  half  the  so-called  Rembrandts  in  Europe. 
They  are  so  strong  that  it  is  very  easy  to  un- 
derstand how  unscrupulous  dealers  could  palm 
them  off  for  Rembrandts  and  how  unthinking 
collectors  could  accept  them  as  such. 

2539.    Man  with  a  Cap.     A  rather  strong  portrait 

in  its  forced  effect  of  light  and  dark,  but  loose  in 
the  drawing  and  somewhat  uncertain  in  the  han- 
dling. The  hat  has  been  redrawn  several  times, 
as  also  the  head.  It  is  not  by  Rembrandt,  but 
of  his  school.  The  same  hand  probably  did  No. 
820  at  the  Hermitage,  St.  Petersburg. 

45.  The  Woman  Taken  in  Adultery.  A  pretty 

picture  with  nice  textures  and  rather  sweet  colours 

">-  by  a  Rembrandt  follower  not  far  removed  (in 
style  at  least)  from  Willem  de  Poorter  or  Solomon 
Koninck.  See  the  Rembrandt  notes  on  the 


REMBRANDT  109 

Proserpine  (No.  823)  in  the  Berlin  Gallery  and 
the  Simeon  in  the  Temple  (No.  145)  in  The  Hague 
Gallery  for  the  reasons  why  this  small  work  is  not 
by  Rembrandt.  The  principal  reason  is  that  Rem- 
brandt had  not  the  small  mind  to  conceive  things 
such  as  this  nor  the  small  hand  to  do  them.  Think 
of  the  man  who  did  the  Lesson  in  Anatomy,  the 
Night  Watch,  and  the  Five  Syndics  doing  this  lit- 
tle art  that  is  about  up  to  the  level  of  a  Dou  or  a 
Poorter! 

47.    Adoration  of  the  Shepherds.     There  is  noth- 

Y  ing  about  it  to  indicate  Rembrandt  except  the 
general  scheme  of  lighting;  but  with  everything 
about  it  indicative  of  Rembrandt's  pupil  and  fol- 
lower, Eeckhout.  It  is  like  in  drawing  and  han- 
dling to  the  same  subject  in  the  Passion  Series  at 
Munich  (No.  331),  there  ascribed  to  Rem- 
brandt, but  largely  done  by  pupils — chiefly  Eeck- 
hout. Compare  it  with  No.  45  here,  said  to  have 
been  done  by  Rembrandt  two  years  earlier.  No- 
tice the  difference  in  style,  handling,  drawing, 
colour,  conception. 

54.  A  Woman  Bathing.  In  the  style  of  the  va- 
rious nudes  in  European  galleries  given  to  Rem- 

Y^  brandt,  especially  the  Woman  Bathing  in  the 
Louvre  (No.  2549).  This  is  the  same  model,  the 
same  light  and  shade,  the  same  water,  the  same 
golden  cloak  at  the  back.  The  modelling  is  striking 
and  the  white  shirt  really  superb  in  quality.  The 
shadows,  though  dark,  are  luminous,  the  colour 
very  good,  and  the  handling  free.  The  light  and 
shade  and  the  white  shirt  are  like  the  work  of 
Eeckhout,  but  the  modelling  and  drawing  seem 
almost  too  good  for  him.  Yet  the  drawing  is  too 


110  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

hard,  the  shadows  too  dark,  the  whites  too  high- 
keyed  for  Rembrandt.  It  is  nearer  Eeckhout  than 
Rembrandt. 

757.  Rembrandt,  School  of.  Christ  Blessing  Little 
Children.  A  picture  upon  which  many  critics 
have  laid  guesses  as  to  its  authorship,  but  with 
no  satisfactory  results.  The  head  at  the  extreme 
left  might  be  compared  with  the  head  of  the  man 
in  the  Card  Players  by  Nicolas  Maes  (No.  1247). 
The  red  colours  and  the  black  shadows  are  also 
like  Maes's.  He  had  several  styles — facile  per- 
son that  he  was — and  this  is  not  unlikely  one  of 
them,  though  such  a  conclusion  is  not  to  be  ar- 
rived at  merely  by  comparing  two  heads  or  colours. 
The  picture  is  perhaps  nearer  to  Fabritius  than 
any  one  else,  but  the  catalogue  attribution  is  as 
near  the  mark  as  can  be  safely  reached. 

2930.  Ribalta,  Francisco  de.  Christ  Bearing  the 
*  Cross.  It  is  fine  in  its  largeness  of  feeling,  its 
breadth  and  simplicity  of  colour,  its  atmospheric 
setting,  its  excellent  buildings  at  the  back.  Notice 
the  huge  weight  and  bulk  of  the  cross,  the  large 
drapery,  the  bent  figure.  It  seems  that  there 
were  painters  in  Spain  before  Velasquez,  as 
warriors  in  Greece  before  Agamemnon's  days,  but 
the  fact  has  heretofore  been  persistently  ignored. 
Some  of  the  early  Ribaltas  have  been  given  to 
Velasquez  and  Ribera,  and  the  pictures  of  his  late 
period  are  rare  enough.  An  excellent  picture  and 
a  notable  addition  to  the  gallery. 

235.  Ribera,  Jusefe  (Lo  Spagnoletto).  The  Dead 
Christ.  The  figure  of  Christ  is  thin,  spare, 
stiffened  in  death,  quite  cold.  It  is  a  slight  figure, 
attenuated,  somewhat  distorted,  but  well  drawn. 


ROMANINO  111 

The  whole  scene  is  given  with  good  emotional 
feeling.  The  picture  has  been  over-cleaned,  as 
in  the  hands  of  the  Madonna,  or  the  face  of  the 
Magdalen.  The  colour  of  it  is  rather  dark,  deep, 
rich. 

S486.  Roberti,  Ercole  di.  The  Concert.  The  action 
is  perhaps  unhappy  because  the  singers  will  never 
close  their  mouths  and  have  done  with  the  song. 
The  hands  are  mannered,  the  faces  accented  in 
outlines,  everything  a  little  sharp  and  tight  in  draw- 
ing, but  the  colour  is  fairly  good.  Mr.  Berenson 
thinks  it  an  early  Costa. 

[127.  The  Last  Supper.  A  small  picture,  yet  a  gem 

in  its  architecture,  its  figures,  and  its  variegated 
but  beautiful  colours.  The  drawing  is  severe.  One 
might  question  the  attribution  without  being  able 
to  supply  a  more  fitting  name. 

1411.    Adoration  of  the  Shepherds.     What  a  lovely 

type  that  of  the  Madonna!  The  shepherd  back 
of  her  is  excellent  in  action.  The  panel  at  the 
right,  the  Dead  Christ,  has  the  pathos  of  an  early 
Bellini,  and  is  beautiful  in  its  colour.  The  drawing 
in  both  panels  is  very  good  if  minute.  See  also 
No.  1217. 

297.    Romanino,  Girolamo  Romani,  II.     Nativity. 

An  altar-piece  in  five  compartments  and  all  told 
x  quite  a  fine  piece.  It  is  done  in  Romanino' s 
Giorgionesque  manner.  The  central  figures  are 
rather  large  of  head  and  small  of  hand,  but  they 
are  given  with  good  sentiment,  good  colour,  and 
very  good  light  and  shade.  The  surfaces  are 
perhaps  too  china-like,  and  Romanino's  draw- 
ing is  always  shaky;  but  his  general  decorative 
effect  in  a  large  altar-piece  like  this  is  very  good 


112  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

— good,  not  great.  Notice  the  landscape  and  the 
fine  blues  in  the  hills  and  skies.  Romanino's  crossed 
eyes  show  in  some  of  the  cherubs  at  the  top. 

624.    Romano,     Giulio.     Infancy    of    Jupiter.     The 

nymphs  at  the  head  and  foot  of  the  cradle,  which- 
ever way  they  may  care  to  look,  cannot  allow 
their  looking  to  interfere  with  the  display  of  their 
finely-drawn  backs.  It  is  quite  evident  that  the 
painter  thought  the  doing  of  the  backs  the  better 
part  of  this  picture.  This  is  the  academic  view 
that  came  into  Roman  art  after  Raphael.  Affec- 
tation is  seen  in  all  of  these  figures,  including  the 
young  Jupiter,  but  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that 
they  really  are  graceful  and  well  drawn.  The 
landscape,  too,  is  affected,  conventional,  done  by 
rule  and  rote,  but  nevertheless  well  done,  hand- 
some, to  be  admired. 

38.  Rubens,  Peter  Paul.  Abduction  of  the  Sabine 
*  Women.  A  picture  done  in  a  free,  sketchy  man- 
ner, with  considerable  skill  in  the  drawing  and 
handling,  and  great  action  in  the  struggling  groups. 
It  is  a  rich  piece  of  colour,  a  good  piece  of  paint- 
ing, and,  being  upon  wood,  is  fairly  well  preserved. 
Notice  the  group  of  women  high  up  on  the  left,  and 
the  central  group  in  the  foreground  for  the  best 
of  the  drawing  and  handling.  Some  of  the  side 
figures  were  done  by  pupils  of  Rubens  or  at  best 
received  no  more  than  a  lick  and  a  rub  from  the 
master's  brush.  The  occasional  ill-drawn  hands, 
the  pasty  high  lights  on  hair  and  flesh  speak  for 
the  pupils  or  the  restorer.  But,  in  spite  of  such 
things,  the  picture  is  pretty  close  to  the  master. 
He  designed  it  and  painted  the  better  part  of  it. 
Rubens's  hand  never  failed  at  any  time — he  died 


RUBENS  113 

too  early  for  that.  But  in  most  of  his  work  he 
was  helped  by  pupils.  The  background  seems  a 
little  out  of  tone — a  slight  matter.  The  picture 
as  a  whole  is  very  good. 

853.   The  Triumph  of  Silenus.     An  excellent  ex- 

**  ample  of  Rubens's  fluid  style  of  painting,  and  in 
X  a  fairly  good  state  of  preservation.  The  flesh 
colour  is  his,  as  is  also  the  drawing — all  the  figures 
having  been  done  by  his  own  hand  with  no  indica- 
tion of  help  from  pupils.  The  drawing  is  almost 
flawless,  or  would  be  but  for  some  cleaning  and 
retouching.  The  tremendous  bulk  and  twist  of 
the  fat  body  of  Silenus  and  the  flush  of  the 
bestial  face  are  notable.  The  figures  and  faces 
everywhere  are  excellent.  Go  close  to  the  can- 
vas and  note  the  way  in  which  the  hair  is  painted 
on  the  heads  at  the  left  and  also  the  hair  of  the 
children  at  the  bottom.  The  face  of  the  nymph 
at  the  top  has  been  too  much  cleaned  and  the 
brush  strokes  in  the  hair  marred,  but  neverthe- 
less make  a  mental  note  of  what  remains  of  it. 
Note  also  the  doing  of  the  group  of  trees  at 
the  right,  and  the  little  scrap  of  landscape  at  the 
left.  Critics  may  tell  you  that  Thulden  or  others 
did  them  and  that  Snyders  did  the  grapes;  but 
Rubens  could  do  them  readily  enough  if  it  so 
pleased  him.  All  of  these  features  should  be  re- 
membered, for  they  are  to  be  compared  with 
other  pictures  in  this  gallery,  put  down  to  Rubens, 
but  which  are  no  more  than  school  pieces.  Fi- 
nally, note  in  this  picture  the  quality  of  the  flesh 
colour,  the  shadows,  and  the  light.  Compare  them 
with  those  in  Nos.  853,  46,  67,  or  59  and  ask 
yourself  which  is  the  finer  and  truer.  A  superb 
picture  in  luminosity  of  flesh  and  glow  of  colour. 


114  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

852.  Chapeau  de  Foil.  It  is  possibly  a  portrait 

*  of  Suzanne  Fourment  (sister  to  Helene),  whose 

^  portrait  appears  again  in  the  Louvre  (No.  2114 
and  in  the  Marie  de'  Medici  Series,  No.  2093). 
It  was  done  about  1620,  and  has  been  too  much 
cleaned;  but  still  remains  in  fair  condition,  with 
the  brush  strokes  apparent  in  the  hat,  hair,  nose, 
eyes,  and  in  the  red  shadows  of  the  nostrils  and 
fingers.  Notice  the  ease  with  which  the  high 
lights  on  the  dress  are  done,  and  then  move 
back  to  observe  their  realistic  effect.  A  frail, 
but  very  fine  portrait.  Rubens  usually  chose 
coarser  material  and  more  resounding  colour. 
But  this  is  excellent  in  character  as  in  colour. 
The  modelling  of  the  neck  slightly  hurt.  Re- 
touched elsewhere. 

194.    The    Judgment    of    Paris.      This   is  a    good 

**  example  of  Rubens's  late  work,  done  with  only 
,  some  slight  help  from  pupils,  but  somewhat  dis- 

\  torted  by  cleaning  and  retouching.  The  types 
are  graceful,  but  not  fragile.  They  are  heroic 
figures,  not  pretty  versions  of  the  Medici  Venus 
type.  How  beautifully  Rubens  has  drawn  them 
and  placed  them  in  the  picture!  And  with  what 
a  glow  of  colour,  wrung  from  flesh  notes  more  than 
from  robes!  Notice  the  handling  of  the  hair  in 
the  two  figures  at  the  extreme  right  and  in  the 
Grace  at  the  extreme  left.  It  is  necessary  that 
one  should  get  Rubens's  certainty  of  handling 
well  in  mind  if  he  would  be  sure  about  the  pic- 
tures attributed  to  the  master.  Every  touch  of 
Rubens's  brush  meant  something  as  drawing,  as 
relief,  as  colour-splendour,  as  texture;  whereas  with 
his  pupils  and  imitators  every  stroke  was  designed 
for  similar  results,  but  often  fell  short  of  the  mark 


RUBENS  115 

through  lack  of  skill — through  lack  of  certainty 
in  their  hands.  Certain  features  in  this  picture, 
such  as  the  sketchy  figure  in  the  sky,  are  not 
effectively  drawn  and  may  be  referred  to  Rubens's 
pupils,  as  also  such  things  as  the  dog,  the  sheep, 
and  some  of  the  landscape.  The  faulty  modelling 
in  the  legs,  arms,  shoulders,  and  hands  of  Mer- 
cury or  Paris  may  be  referred  to  the  cleaning 
room.  When  originally  painted,  they  must  have 
been  quite  right.  The  landscape  may  be  pupils' 
work,  but  even  as  such  notice  what  quality  it  has 
as  compared  with  No.  66,  a  celebrated  landscape 
assigned  to  Rubens.  Notice  the  breadth  of  its 
colour,  the  absence  of  spotty  high  lights,  the  depth 
and  richness  of  the  sky.  It  is  far  away  and 
beyond  No.  66  and  nearer  to  No.  2924. 

66.  Landscape  with  Chateau  de  Steen.  If  ap- 
peal is  made  to  the  picture  No.  194  for  the  manner 

V  in  which  Rubens,  or  his  pupils  working  under 
him,  painted  a  landscape,  it  will  be  found  that  this 
Chateau  de  Steen  picture  does  not  agree  and 
cannot  be  sustained  as  his  work.  The  light  here 
is  different;  the  trees  are  cruder  and  rawer  in 
drawing,  light,  colour,  and  textures;  the  sky  is 
glassy  and  wants  depth  and  quality;  the  dis- 
tance lacks  in  breadth  and  is  spotty;  the  fore- 
ground lacks  in  solidity  and  is  spongy.  As  for 
the  chateau,  it  is  a  house  of  cards,  a  frosted-cake 
affair  that  Rubens  never  could  have  painted. 
The  figures  (and  Rubens  was  a  figure  painter  of 
the  very  highest  rank)  are  quite  as  bad.  They 
are  not  his  types,  or  his  drawing,  or  his  handling. 
Notice  the  faces  and  hands,  especially  those  of  the 
people  in  the  wagon,  and  the  pot-hunter  in  the 
foreground.  Go  close  and  examine  them.  Almost 


116  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

the  whole  of  the  foreground  is  made  up  of  inac- 
curate detail  with  impossible  tree  trunks,  branches, 
leaves,  banks,  ditches,  cows.  The  picture  is  by 
some  assistant,  follower,  or  imitator.  The  Rain- 
bow Landscape  (No.  62)  in  the  Wallace  Collection 
is  by  the  same  hand,  and  possibly  No.  67  in  this 
gallery  came  from  a  similar  source.  There  are 
many  examples  of  this  Rubens  follower  or  assis- 
tant in  European  galleries.  The  landscape  (No. 
654)  in  the  Vienna  Academy  (assigned  to  Van  Uden) 
and  the  landscape  at  Brussels  (No.  391)  show  him 
as  here.  It  is  impossible  to  name  him.  Nor  is 
that  necessary.  The  main  thing  to  be  established 
is  that  he  is  not  Rubens.  The  Rubens  landscape, 
as  elsewhere  stated,  is  well  illustrated  by  the 
landscape  (No.  869)  at  Vienna  or  here  in  this  gal- 
lery (No.  2924).  Yet  this  picture  (No.  66)  is  not 
so  bad,  taken  as  a  whole.  In  fact,  it  makes  quite 
a  show  on  the  wall,  and  has  been  much  and  favour- 
ably written  about  by  well-known  writers  on  art. 
Said  to  have  been  painted  about  1636,  the  same 
time  as  No.  194,  with  which  it  should  be  com- 
pared. 

67.    A   Holy  Family   with   St.    George  and  Other 

Saints.  The  figures,  the  putti,  the  architecture, 
the  landscape,  are  all  somewhat  removed  from 
Rubens's  manner  of  working.  He  never,  not 
even  in  his  roughest  sketches,  showed  such  bad 
drawing  and  painting  as  here.  Notice  the  wooden 
face,  and  false  light  on  the  jaw  of  the  Madonna, 
the  monstrous  Child  of  dreadful  drawing  in  her 
arms,  the  white  plastered  hair  and  shoulders  of 
the  saint  in  black  back  of  her,  the  abnormal  putto 
above  her,  the  muddy  face  of  St.  George  behind 
her,  the  woolly  dragon  at  his  feet,  the  ill-drawn 


RUBENS  117 

putti  with  the  badly  mangled  sheep  at  the  right, 
the  hopeless  Joseph  at  the  back.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  go  further.  The  picture  is  some  sort  of 
replica  of  the  picture  in  the  Prado,  Madrid  (No. 
1640).  It  has  fairly  good  colour  and  has  some 
snap  in  its  shadows,  but  it  is  not  by  Rubens,  but 
by  some  assistant  or  follower.  The  landscape  and 
spotty  handling  of  the  high  lights,  the  badly 
drawn  figures  and  sheep,  suggest  that  its  painter 
may  be  the  painter  of  No.  66  in  this  gallery. 

157.  Landscape,  Sunset.  This  is  a  better  land- 
scape than  No.  66 — that  is  to  say,  it  holds  to- 
V^  gether  better,  is  less  formal  in  composition,  less 
repeated  in  the  rows  of  trees,  less  spotty  in  the 
high  lights,  less  glassy  in  the  sky.  Yet  every 
one  should  know  that  Rubens  never  drew  such  a 
figure  as  that  seated  upon  the  bench,  never  drew 
such  sheep,  never  drew  such  buildings  or  trees, 
never  was  guilty  of  even  the  momentary  aberra- 
tion of  placing  the  sun  between  the  spectator  and 
the  distant  hills.  The  drawing  of  the  sky  here 
points  directly  to  the  painter  of  No.  2118  in  the 
Louvre.  See  the  note  upon  that  picture. 

2924.   Landscape.    The  drawing  of  the  trees,  the 

placing  of  the  high  lights  on  the  tree  trunks,  the 
general  distribution  of  light,  the  mass  of  shadow 
at  the  right  are  all  simpler,  better,  and  different 
from  No.  66.  Moreover,  there  are  here  no  badly 
drawn  sheep,  as  in  No.  157,  nor  badly  drawn  fig- 
ures and  trees  with  high  lights  rubbed  down  the 
trunks  in  a  line,  as  in  No.  66.  The  landscape  is, 
in  fact,  well  enough  done  for  Rubens  and  agrees 
fairly  well  with  what  we  see  in  the  background 
of  such  Rubens  figure-pieces  as  Nos.  194  and  853, 


118  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

in  this  gallery.  Compare  the  drawing  in  the  rocks 
of  the  foreground  here  or  the  tree  trunks  at  the 
right  with  the  same  features  in  No.  66  or  157,  and 
you  will  see  the  difference.  The  same  difference 
runs  through  the  drawing  everywhere  in  the 
picture.  This  is  the  best  of  all  the  so-called 
Rubens's  landscapes  here  and  must  be  accepted 
as  in  measure  a  Rubens  criterion. 

278.    Triumph   of  Julius   Ccesar.      A    sketch    from 

portions  of  the  series  of  tempera  paintings  by 
Mantegna  at  Hampton  Court,  but  there  is  small 
reason  to  think  Rubens  made  the  sketch,  not- 
withstanding it  appears  in  his  little-known  Inven- 
tory. This  is  not  the  drawing  and  handling  of 
Rubens.  Study  the  faces,  the  beards,  and  the 
hair,  anywhere  in  the  picture,  and  compare  them 
with  those  in  No.  853  or  194.  Note  the  clumsi- 
ness and  uncertainty  of  the  drawing  in  the  small 
figures  at  the  back,  the  buildings,  and  the  trees 
— the  wretched  trees.  It  is  the  work  of  some 
pupil  or  assistant,  done  possibly  at  Rubens's  be- 
hest, for  his  own  use,  but  certainly  not  done  by 
Rubens  himself. 

57.  Conversion  of  St.  Bavon.  Neither  the  draw- 
ing nor  the  handling  speak  strongly  for  Rubens, 
and  the  colour  is  only  mildly  suggestive  of  him. 
Compare  the  figures,  heads,  faces,  hands  with 
those  in  No.  853,  and  the  difference  will  be  ap- 
parent. The  types  even  are  not  those  of  Rubens, 
as  witness  those  of  the  three  women  at  the  far 
left  below  the  curiously  foreshortened  architec- 
ture. It  is  not  possible  for  a  painter  to  vary  so 
widely  in  his  methods  and  manners — at  least  not 
for  an  artist  of  Rubens's  technical  accomplish- 


RUBENS  119 

ments.  The  picture  is  more  likely  a  sketch  after 
Rubens  than  a  sketch  by  him  for  the  altar-piece 
at  Ghent. 

46.    Peace  and  War.     This  looks  very  much  like 

a  Rubens  school  piece — that  is,  something  done 
X  in  his  studio,  probably  designed  by  him,  but 
executed  largely  by  pupils.  Compare  the  satyr 
with  the  satyrs  in  No.  853  for  flesh  colour,  drawing, 
handling  of  the  hair  and  beard.  Compare  also 
the  handling  of  the  hair,  the  high  lights  on  the 
flesh,  the  modelling  of  the  backs,  the  arms,  the 
faces,  and  the  textures  with  those  in  No.  194. 
It  is  a  fine  decorative  piece  of  colour,  somewhat 
darkened,  perhaps,  but  with  some  good  painting 
in  it.  It  is  probably  not  touched  by  the  mas- 
ter's hand,  except  in  a  few  places — the  central 
figures,  perhaps,  though  even  that  is  doubtful, 
owing  to  much  cleaning  and  restoration. 

59.     The    Brazen    Serpent.       It    is    probably    a 

*  genuine  enough  Rubens,  painted  in  the  acces- 
,  sory  portions  by  pupils.  The  Moses  and  Aaron 
IS-  at  the  left  speak  strongly  for  Van  Dyck.  The 
picture  has  suffered  from  cleaning  and  repainting 
in  spots,  as,  for  instance,  the  ill-drawn  hands  of 
the  Moses.  The  picture  has  life  and  movement 
about  it  with  some  positive  drawing  in  the  fore- 
ground figures  and  in  the  head,  neck,  and  shoulders 
of  the  kneeling  woman  above  them.  Somewhat 
blackened,  though  still  fine  in  colour.  A  version 
of  this  by  Van  Dyck  is  in  Madrid  (No.  1637). 

990.  Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.  A  Flat,  Wooded  Coun- 
try. This  is  the  most  considerable  of  the  many 

Y^  Ruisdaels  in  the  gallery.  It  is  the  Ruisdael  con- 
vention used  with  some  realistic  touches  here 


120  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

and  there.  The  foreground  is  unusual  with  the 
ruin  at  the  right  making  a  fine  spot  of  mellow 
light.  The  dark  church  and  the  sunburst  of  the 
middle  distance  are  well  contrasted,  and  the  sky 
shows  finely  with  its  storm  cloud  against  the  blue. 
An  excellent  Ruisdael. 

854.   Forest  Scene.     It  has  a  more  tortured  and 

niggled  surface  than  No.  990  and  is  infinitely 
more  prosaic.  The  light  is  dull,  the  colour  slate- 
hued,  the  sky  rather  muddy. 

987.  Rocky  Landscape  with  Torrent.  This  pic- 
ture and  Nos.  737,  986,  627,  628  are  familiar  in 
theme  to  all  gallery  habitues.  They  are  grey, 
glassy,  studio  conventions  that  Ruisdael  and  his 
workshop  repeated  again  and  again.  They  have 
good  decorative  quality,  but  lack  in  spirit,  spon- 
taneity, truth,  and  good  feeling.  No.  990  is 
worth  a  score  of  them. 

Watermills.     One  of  the   smaller   Ruisdaels 


showing  good  sky  and  colour.  The  unusual  little 
hill  with  trees,  at  the  left,  is  most  welcome.  The 
foreground  is  very  dark  in  its  shadows.  See  also 
No.  44  as  a  slight  departure  from  the  Ruisdael 
convention. 

690.    Sarto,   Andrea  del.     Portrait    of   a    Sculptor. 

~J  Andrea  "  senza  errori,"  but  you  should  not  hold  him 
responsible  for  the  faulty  hands  of  this  portrait, 
for  they  are  restorer's  work,  not  his.  The  whole 
picture  has  been  injured,  but  still  preserves  some 
dignity  and  presence,  and  has  some  atmospheric 
envelope. 

17.    Holy  Family.     It  seems  a  rather  slight  affair 

fv    for  Andrea,  though  the  square  of  the  picture  is 


SELLAJO  121 

nicely  filled  with  form  and  colour,  both  of  them 
having  considerable  merit.  The  picture  is  a 
little  dull  in  its  lighting.  As  usual,  it  has  suffered 
in  the  cleaning  room,  and  is  now  soft  and  pret- 
tified. 

1031.  Savoldo,  Girolamo.  Mary  Magdalen  at  the 
Sepulchre.  A  picture  that  catches  the  eye  by  the 
superficial  texture  and  glitter  of  the  dress,  which 
resembles  a  modern  water-proof  cloak  more  than 
a  silk  garment.  The  face  is  hard  in  the  drawing 
and  the  sky  raw  in  the  painting. 

720.    Scorel,  Jan  van.      Holy  Family  at  a  Fountain. 

It  is  weak  for  a  man  like  Scorel,  whom  we  know 
as  a  draughtsman  of  great  vigour  and  force.  [Now 
(1913)  given  to  Master  of  the  Half-Lengths.] 

567.    Segna  di  Buenaventura.     Christ  on  the  Cross. 

A  crucifix  of  handsome  decorative  quality,  espe- 
cially in  the  halo  of  the  Christ,  the  background, 
and  in  the  figures  at  the  sides.  The  drawing 
shows  limited  knowledge,  but  is  sufficient  to 
reveal  the  tragic  feeling  of  the  Crucifixion. 

916.  Sellajo,  Jacopo  del.  Venus  Reclining  with 
Cupids.  It  should  be  studied  in  connection  with 
the  Botticelli  Venus  and  Mars  (No.  915)  to  ascer- 
tain the  difference  between  the  master  and  a  fol- 
lower. The  flowers  and  landscape  should  be  com- 
pared with  a  Botticelli  in  Berlin  (No.  102 A). 
This  picture  in  the  National  Gallery  was  formerly 
attributed  to  Botticelli,  but  the  drawing  is  too 
vague  for  him,  the  figure  too  rounded,  the  out- 
line too  soft.  That  Jacopo  del  Sellajo  did  the 
picture  is  not  too  certainly  established. 


122  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

1317.    Sienese  School.      Marriage  of  the  Virgin.     The 

gilding,  the  colour,  and  the  drawing  of  the  church 
interior  are  all  interesting.  The  figures  are 
slighter  than  Duccio's  and  the  sentiment  is  per- 
haps more  attenuated.  It  approaches  the  Loren- 
zetti. 

1847.    Signorelli,    Luca.      Virgin    Crowned   by  Angels. 

A  somewhat  laboured  work  with  weary-looking 
saints  simulating  an  interest  in  what  they  are 
doing.  A  square,  balanced  composition,  rounded 
at  the  top  by  angels.  The  drawing  hard,  the 
eyes  small  and  crossed,  the  colour  somewhat  vio- 
lent, the  landscape  attractive.  Hardly  by  Signo- 
relli. It  has  a  superficial  look  of  the  master,  but  is 
a  school  piece. 

910.    Triumph  of  Chastity.     A  fine  piece  of  colour 

with  good  action  in  the  group  and  drawing  in  the 
figures.  A  fresco  transferred  to  canvas.  The 
catalogue  suggestion  of  Genga  as  the  painter, 
rather  than  Signorelli,  is  nearer  the  mark,  but  not 
wholly  satisfactory. 

2488.    Holy  Family.     It  is  very  hot  in  the  colour  of 

the  flesh,  dark  in  the  shadows,  and  not  very  pleas- 
ing, though  the  Madonna  is  a  fine  large  type  and 
has  dignity  and  spirit.  The  attribution  is  not 
so  very  apparent. 

1133.   The    Nativity.     One    wonders    if    Van    der 

Goes,  or  Ghirlandajo  after  Van  der  Goes,  had  any 
influence  here  in  the  drawing  of  the  shepherd's 
hands,  with  their  knotty  joints.  The  ill-pro- 
portions of  the  Child  are  noticeable  and  the  com- 
position is  spotty  in  groups  that  have  little  rela- 
tionship to  each  other.  They  are  held  together 


SOLARIO  123 

by  colour,  but  rather  loosely  so.  With  some  Um- 
brian  sentiment  in  the  angels  and  a  fantastic 
landscape.  The  attribution  is  not  satisfying.  The 
picture  is  probably  a  school  piece. 

18.  -  —  The  Circumcision.  The  painter  has  used 
all  the  colours  on  his  palette  to  produce  a  rich 
effect,  and  after  all  has  not  attained  it.  The 
figure  of  the  woman  in  dark  red,  at  the  extreme 
right,  is  the  best  part  of  the  picture.  Note  the 
variety  of  colour  in  the  floor  or  in  the  wall  at  back. 
There  is  some  atmosphere  and  good  shadow,  but 
the  figures  are  huddled,  angular,  hot  in  colour, 
though  the  draperies  are  good.  Much  repainted. 

1252.  Snyders,  Frans.  Fruit  Piece.  What  an  excel- 
lent piece  of  still-life  painting!  And  what  beau- 
tiful colour!  It  seems  almost  impossible  that 
Snyders  could  do  such  work  and  yet  it  is  un- 
doubtedly by  him. 

734.  Solario,  Andrea  da.  Portrait  of  Giovanni  Chris- 
toforo  Longono.  It  has  not  the  force  of  No. 
923,  though  it  is  larger  in  bulk.  A  fine  portrait, 
nevertheless,  with  a  huge  figure  and  good  hands. 
The  landscape  is  attractive,  but  a  little  crude. 
The  face  is  similar  in  drawing  and  modelling  to 
the  Charles  d'Amboise  in  the  Louvre. 

923.  -  — Portrait  of  a  Venetian  Senator.  A  head  and 
face  of  character  and  determination,  drawn  with 
exactness  and  truth.  Notice  the  forceful  doing 
of  the  mouth,  cheeks,  chin.  The  hands  have  been 
too  much  cleaned,  but  still  show  good  modelling. 
These  North  Italian  types  appear  quite  wonder- 
ful in  the  hands  of  Mantegna,  Pisano,  and  occa- 
sionally Solario.  An  early  work  with  a  good 


124  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

landscape  background  which  is  different,  however, 
from  the  so-called  Solario  of  Charles  d'Amboise 
in  the  Louvre — as  different  as  the  modellings  and 
drawings  of  the  faces. 

2503.  Solario,  Antonio  da.  Holy  Family.  A  small, 
graceful  picture.  The  Madonna  is  a  little  sugary, 
as  is  also  the  Child.  The  landscape  at  the  back 
is  very  good.  This  painter  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  Andrea  da  Solario.  See  the  cat- 
alogue note. 

1032.  Spagna,  Lo.  Agony  in  the  Garden.  The  sen- 
timent, in  which  the  sleeping,  as  well  as  the  wak- 
ing, figures  partake  is  Peruginesque,  but  not 
overwrought.  The  drawing  is  frail  in  the  figures, 
the  landscape  Umbrian  and  spacious,  the  hard 
flowers  quite  beautiful.  The  picture  is  little  more 
than  a  free  copy  or  variation  of  Perugino's  pic- 
ture of  the  same  subject  in  the  Florence  Academy 
(No.  53).  Lo  Spagna  was  an  imitator  of  Peru- 
gino,  Pinturicchio,  and  Raphael. 

1812.    Agony    in    the   Garden.     This   is   a   copy   of 

part  of  No.  1032.  Even  the  poor  drawing  of  the 
eyes  and  the  folds  of  the  drapery  are  followed 
literally.  The  weakness  of  the  copy  shows  in 
the  drawing  of  the  tree  trunk  and  its  branches 
(where  they  crop  out  from  the  trunk)  perhaps 
better  than  elsewhere. 

276.  Spinello,  Aretino.  Two  Apostles.  These  heads 
give  an  accurate  idea  of  the  types,  draperies, 
haloes,  and  religious  sentiment  of  the  early  Tus- 
cans following  Giotto.  The  sentiment  is  per- 
haps excessive,  but  it  belongs  to  the  time.  Ap- 
parently done  in  dry  fresco. 


TACCONI  125 

Fall   of   the   Rebel  Angels.     A   fragment   of 

a  fresco  transferred  to  canvas.  There  is  a  good 
deal  of  strength  in  it,  and  at  one  time,  no  doubt, 
much  beauty  of  colour.  The  archangel  is  power- 
ful in  bulk  of  body. 

Steen,  Jan.  The  Music  Master.  The  blue 
skirt  screams  at  one,  and  the  whole  picture  is  a 
little  too  pretty  for  Steen.  The  surfaces  are 
smooth,  the  tapestry  at  the  back  injured,  the  pas- 
sage way  well  done. 

Woman  Asleep.  A  small  picture,  but  per- 
haps the  most  satisfactory  of  those  here  attributed 
to  Steen.  The  woman  is  well  drawn  and  easily 
painted,  and  the  colour  is  attractive. 

Grace    Before    Meat.     The    group    is    nicely 

placed  in  the  room,  and  it  is  an  attractive  group 
in  itself.  The  woman  and  child,  too,  are  nice 
in  sentiment  and  colour.  Unfortunately,  they  have 
been  retouched  in  parts,  notably  in  the  child's 
hands  and  face.  Not  a  bad  Steen,  though  in  his 
smoother  and  prettier  vein. 

Terrace    Scene    with    Figures.     The    largest 

picture  by  Steen  in  the  gallery,  but  not  any  better 
than  the  rather  poor  average.  The  lower  part  of 
the  woman's  figure  is  not  very  convincing  and 
the  side  figures  are  somewhat  perfunctory.  The 
background  and  sky  are  too  elegant  for  Steen. 
He  is  not  well  represented  in  this  gallery. 

Tacconi,    Francesco.      Madonna  and  Child.      It 

has  the  signature  of  Tacconi,  but  the  look  of  a 
prettified  Bellini  or  Vivarini.  The  colour  is  agree- 
able and  the  sentiment  is  not  bad,  but  it  is  a 
slight  affair. 


126  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

949.    Teniers  the  Elder,  David.     Rocky  Landscape. 

*  A  large  landscape  with  a  good  deal  of  solidity 
^    and  strength  to  it.     A  fine,  lofty  sky.     Nos.  950 

and  951  are  other  good  examples  of  this  painter — 
the  father  of  Teniers  the  Younger. 

2600.    Teniers  the  Younger,  David.     Card  Players. 

One  of  many  Teniers  in  this  gallery,  all  of 
them  showing  his  usual  facility  in  drawing  and 
handling.  He  was  too  facile,  painted  too  easily, 
and  too  much.  Had  his  quantity  been  less,  his 
quality  might  perhaps  have  been  better.  See 
also  Nos.  817  or  2599,  242,  863,  155. 

864.    Terborch,  Gerard.     The  Guitar  Lesson.     The 

*  figure  of  the  guitar  player  in  white  and  yellow 
satin  is  very  attractive  in  every  way.     The  well- 
drawn  hands,  the  table-cloth,  the  chair,  the  still- 
life,  the  texture  of  the  stuffs  are  notable.     The 
wall  at  the  back  is  not  so  well  done  as  usual  with 
Terborch,  and  the  bed  is  only  to  be  guessed  at. 

1399.    Portrait  of  a  Gentleman.      A  fine  portrait  of 

a  dignified  Dutchman  clad  in  black  garments  and 
square-toed  boots.  The  figure  by  itself  is  excel- 
lent, quite  above  criticism,  worthy  of  high  praise. 
The  surroundings,  however,  though  simple  in  form 
and  beautifully  drawn,  are  too  lively  in  colour. 
They  disturb  and  distract  the  interest  from  the 
portrait.  The  background  fails  to  recede.  There 
is  an  absence  of  envelope — something  usually  well 
marked  in  Terborch.  It  is  not  the  best  example 
of  his  small  portraiture,  though,  to  repeat,  the 
figure  itself  is  excellent. 

1192  \  Tiepolo,  Giovanni  Battista.    Sketches  for  Altar- 

1193  /  pieces.     Beautiful  bits  of  colour  with  figures  laid 

in  hastily,  but  quite  surely.     They  have  the  spirit 


TINTORETTO  127 

and  force  that  the  finished  products  sometimes 
fail  to  realise. 

16.  Tintoretto  (Jacopo  Robusti).  St.  George  and 
**  the  Dragon.  Done  with  much  spirit  and  gusto 
/^s  in  a  realistic  and  yet  romantic  fashion.  Look  at 
the  charge  of  St.  George  at  a  real  dragon,  the 
movement  of  his  horse,  his  own  lean  forward  in 
the  saddle.  The  movement  is  helped  by  the 
swinging  oval  of  the  horse  and  rider,  repeated  in 
the  aureole  in  the  sky,  and  again  in  the  swirled 
drapery  of  the  princess.  Look  at  the  hurrying 
princess,  the  absolutely  dead  body,  the  real  sea, 
and  the  real  shore  and  wood.  At  the  back  are 
the  walls  of  an  enormous  castle,  and  above  it  a 
high  sky.  What  a  splendid  colour  spot  the  beau- 
tiful princess  makes  with  her  fluttering  drapery! 
The  handling  of  the  blues  and  pale  reds  here  and 
their^quality  as  colour  may  be  fairly  compared  with 
the  splendid  Titian  (No.  35)  near  at  hand,  and 
to  the  advantage  of  the  Tintoretto.  A  fine  pic- 
ture. 

313.    Origin  of  the  Milky   Way.     A  picture  much 

admired  by  the  late  Mr.  Whistler,  though  for 
,  what  particular  reason  or  quality  he  never  inti- 
mated. What  good  drawing  the  figures  once 
possessed  has  been  much  injured  by  cleaning, 
but  cleaning  is  not  responsible  for  the  odd  arrange- 
ment and  the  rather  haphazard  heaping  together 
of  objects  on  the  canvas.  It  is  crowded  with  too 
many  things,  and  is  lacking  in  good  composition. 
The  colour  is  still  fine,  and  some  of  the  stuffs 
excellent  in  texture.  It  is  certainly  decorative. 
Those  who  are  symbolically  inclined  can  read 
what  other  things  they  please  into  it  or  out  of  it 
at  leisure. 


128  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

4.  Titian  (Tiziano  Vecellio).  Holy  Family.  This 
is  probably  the  poorest  Titian  in  the  gallery,  and 
"%.  to  say  that  it  is  an  early  work  does  not  help  mat- 
ters in  the  least.  That  it  has  been  flayed  and 
repainted  explains  some  things,  but  does  not 
improve  them.  The  St.  Joseph  is  a  manikin 
with  wooden  legs  and  a  flat  head  that  will  not 
stay  on  his  body,  the  Madonna  is  a  huddle  of 
drapery,  the  shepherd  is  not  so  bad.  As  for 
colour,  the  blue  of  the  Madonna's  robe  screams 
with  the  glassy  sky,  and  the  whites  have  no 
quality  about  them.  It  is  a  poor  affair,  and 
some  hand  other  than  Titian's  may  originally 
have  produced  it.  It  has  a  Palmesque  tang 
about  it. 

270.   Noli  Me  Tangere.     A  beautiful  picture.    It  is 

**  thought  out  in  a  poetic,  idyllic  way,  and  even  the 
sentiment  of  it  is  more  romantic  than  religious. 
The  figures  are  perfectly  given,  and  with  grace  in 
the  actions  of  both.  How  quiet  and  dignified  the 
movement  of  drawing  away  from  the  Magdalen ! 
What  a  figure,  and  how  superbly  drawn  and  mod- 
elled, is  that  of  the  Christ!  The  Magdalen  is 
the  same  type  as  the  nude  in  the  Sacred  and  Pro- 
fane Love,  but  here  the  figure  is  not  proudly 
conscious  of  its  beauty,  but  muffled  under  drapery, 
eager,  and  yet  frightened.  The  colour  is  not  ex- 
travagant; on  the  contrary,  it  is  meagre,  but 
sufficient  in  depth  and  richness.  The  drawing, 
painting,  touch,  are  all  distinctly  Titianesque  in 
the  sense  of  being  inimitable,  though  early  work. 
The  landscape  is  quite  right  in  breadth  and  truth 
of  light.  The  buildings  at  the  right  are  shown 
also  in  the  Sacred  and  Profane  Love  in  the  Bor- 
ghese  Gallery,  in  the  Giorgione  Sleeping  Venus  at 


TITIAN  129 

Dresden,  in   the  Amor   in  the  Vienna  Academy 
(No.  466). 

35.  Bacchus  and  Ariadne.  A  famous  picture 

***  that  has  a  perhaps  exaggerated  reputation,  though 

y^  there  is  no  denying  its  great  beauty.  The  col- 
our is  a  little  cold  by  reason  of  its  blue  tone. 
The  blue  note  of  Ariadne's  dress  is  repeated  in 
the  nymph  near  the  car,  and  loudly  echoed  in 
the  sea,  hills,  and  sky  until  it  becomes  almost  too 
predominant.  The  reds  and  golds  and  browns 
fail  to  balance  it — to  warm  it  and  accent  it  by 
contrast.  However,  this  is  cavilling  about  some- 
thing almost  too  fine  for  criticism.  The  quality 
of  its  colour  is  really  above  criticism.  The  figures 
are  superbly  drawn,  especially  the  nymph  with 
the  cymbals  and  the  Bacchus;  though  the  action 
of  the  latter  is  unhappy  and  will  surely  lead  to  a 
bad  fall.  One  does  not  jump  from  a  car  in  that 
way  without  endangering  his  bones.  But  this  is 
cavilling  again  about  a  convention  that  is  not  the 
less  beautiful  though  aside  from  the  true  or  the 
probable.  The  little  faun  is  excellent  in  action, 
the  cheetahs  quite  real,  the  throng  following  the 
car  boisterous,  noisy,  quite  true  to  life.  The  trees, 
the  sea,  the  sky  are  magnificent.  As  a  painted 
surface,  this  is  Titian  at  his  best.  It  was  prob- 
ably gone  over,  amended,  changed,  glazed  many 
times  by  the  painter,  but  the  final  result  leaves 
little  to  be  desired.  It  is  another  Titian  master- 
piece. 

635.    Madonna  and  Child  with  St.  John  and  St. 

*  Catherine.  A  Titian  done  with  much  precision 
of  drawing  and  clarity  of  colour — blue  being  the 
predominant  note.  It  is  a  pyramidal  composi- 


130  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

tion,  exalted  in  the  type  of  the  Madonna,  eager 
in  the  look  of  St.  Catherine,  fine  in  the  St.  John 
with  boyish  bare  legs  and  arms  so  beautifully 
rounded.  Note  the  drawing  of  the  robes  and  the 
veils.  And  in  the  distance  a  superb  Titian  land- 
scape. It  is  not  unlike  the  Madonna  of  the  Rab- 
bit in  the  Louvre.  Somewhat  repainted.  It  is 
seldom  that  one  finds  a  Titian  in  perfect  con- 
dition. The  very  renown  of  his  pictures  resulted 
in  extra  cleaning,  rubbing,  retouching.  Many  a 
neglected  second-rate  master  is  to-day  found  in  a 
better  state  of  preservation. 

34.  Venus  and  Adonis.  Probably  a  school  copy. 

The  back  of  the  Venus  and  the  figure  of  the 

>/  Adonis  are  flat  and  wanting  in  modelling,  because 
of  much  cleaning  and  repainting.  Look  at  the 
sky  with  its  muddy  paint  and  the  trees  where 
they  have  blistered.  Some  fine  suggestions  of 
colour  in  the  stuffs.  The  original  is  probably  not 
the  Madrid  picture  (No.  422).  That,  too,  appears 
to  be  a  copy,  and  a  poorer  one  than  this,  though 
restorations  preclude  any  certainty  about  it. 

1944.    Portrait  of  Ariosto.     Now  generally  accepted 

**  as  an  early  Titian,  though  some  there  are  who 
would  give  it  to  Giorgione.  In  either  or  any  case 
it  is  a  mature  and  perfect  portrait  of  a  noble- 
looking  man  who  may  or  may  not  have  resembled 
Ariosto.  The  man  is  supreme  in  poise  and  quite 
frank  and  honest  in  look.  As  for  the  workman- 
ship, it  is  infallibly  right.  The  head,  the  forehead 
and  hair,  the  oval  of  the  face,  the  beard,  are  Gior- 
gionesque;  but  the  eyes  and  what  is  left  of  the 
handling  are  Titian's,  and  the  beautifully  painted 
sleeve  of  quilted  silk  with  its  feeling  of  thickness 


TURA,  COSIMO  131 

and  weight  as  well  as  texture  might  be  by  either 
of  them.  But  the  portrait  was  probably  done  by 
one  hand,  and  that  hand  possibly  did  much  earlier 
the  Berlin  and  Budapest  portraits  attributed  to 
Giorgione.  It  bears  a  further  relation  to  these 
pictures  in  the  foreground  ledges  and  the  letterings 
upon  them,  in  the  quilted  sleeves,  the  eyes,  brows, 
and  hair;  but  the  Berlin  picture  is  much  the  earlier 
and  less  mature  in  its  drawing  and  painting  than 
this  National  Gallery  picture — the  latest  one.  Re- 
painted in  parts,  it  is  still  superb— a  masterpiece. 
How  commonplace  even  so  good  a  picture  as 
Moroni's  Tailor  seems  beside  it!  What  a  sense  of 
depth — thickness  through — in  the  figure,  and  what 
an  atmospheric  setting  it  has!  Above  all,  what 
superb  repose  and  what  intellectual  grip!  It  is  a 
great  portrait,  but  hard  to  reconcile  with  precon- 
ceived notions  of  Titian  and  Giorgione. 

5907.    Titian,    School    of.     Madonna    and    Child.     A 

blue  note  runs  through  the  Madonna's  dress,  the 
distant  hills,  the  water,  the  sky.  As  an  arrange- 
ment in  blue  it  is  rather  fine,  even  distinguished. 
The  landscape  is  little  like  Titian,  nor  are  the 
types  quite  his  types.  The  Madonna  is  attractive, 
and  though  the  Child  is  heavy  he  is  not  badly 
drawn.  It  is  a  puzzle  as  regards  its  painter,  but 
an  interesting  picture  with  some  individuality 
about  it.  Acquired  in  1913. 

772.  Tura,  Gosimo.  Madonna  and  Child  En- 
throned.  This  is  one  of  Tura's  diagrams  of  form 
and  colour  rather  than  a  pictorial  composition, 
though  he  tried  for  the  latter  by  elevating  and 
centralising  the  Madonna — giving  the  figures  a 
pyramid  form.  The  drawing  is  harsh,  angular, 


132  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

almost  square-edged,  the  feet  and  hands  are  lumpy, 
emphasised  in  the  joints,  wooden;  the  draperies 
are  as  hard  as  bronze,  flow  in  metallic  lines, 
and  have  pools  or  sinks  of  shadow  in  them.  But 
what  a  feeling  of  strength — bronze-like  strength 
— there  is  in  this  drawing!  The  colour  again  is 
cold  with  blues  and  greens,  but  what  a  depth  and 
resonance  it  has!  Tura  is  a  painter  of  power 
with  only  a  faint  suggestion  here  and  there  in  a 
head  or  chin  of  anything  like  grace.  His  types 
are  not  select  nor  their  moods  pleasant.  Facial 
expression  with  him  too  often  turns  into  grimace, 
and  in  this  picture  the  very  music  of  the  angels 
is  an  agony  of  soul  with  the  players.  The  painter 
seems  to  seek  these  graceless,  charmless  qualities, 
but  he  is  so  sincere  in  his  tragic  feeling,  so  accu- 
rate with  his  harsh  truths,  so  honest  even  in  his 
mannerisms  that  we  cannot  choose  but  like  him. 

905.   The  Virgin  Mary.     It  shows  a  sentiment  that 

is  tragic  with  a  colour  that  is  morbid,  yet  what 
strength  in  the  agonised  feeling!  What  beauty 
in  the  robes  and  the  mannered  landscape!  The 
art  that  succeeded  it — the  sweet  smile  of  Francia, 
Costa,  and  even  Correggio — how  cloying  that 
seems  compared  with  this!  Never  mind  the 
homely  face  and  the  over-knuckled  hands.  The 
feeling  of  it,  the  faith  of  it,  the  colour  of  it  make 
it  art. 

773.    St.  Jerome  in   the  Desert.     The  body  is  as 

hard  as  the  rock  held  in  the  hand,  and  the  wrinkled 
drapery  is  of  the  same  relative  weight  and  texture 
as  the  distant  mountain;  but  again  there  is  here 
the  undeniable  power  of  the  man  behind  his  man- 
nerisms. A  fantastic  landscape  with  an  owl 


UCCELLO  133 

seated  on  a  fantastic  limb  of  a  tree,  and  at  the 
back,  kneeling  figures  rich  in  colour.  What  power 
in  both  line  and  colour  this  painter  possessed! 
Painted  in  tempera. 

1196.    Tuscan    School.      Combat    between    Amor    and 

*  Castitas.  This  picture  is  apparently  near  to  No. 
928  as  regards  its  painter,  but  in  reality  it  is  only 
so  in  the  style  of  the  legs  of  the  Amor.  The  draw- 
ing is  different.  What  a  delightful  figure  that  of 
Amor!  The  landscape  is  a  right  setting  for  the 
figures.  There  are  charming  little  spring  flowers 
dotting  the  foreground  like  stars  and  a  fine  sugges- 
tion of  a  wooded  country  at  the  back.  Mr.  Berenson 
thinks  the  picture  by  Cosimo  Rosselli. 

583.    Uccello,    Paolo.     Battle  of  San  Romano,   1432. 

**  A  picture  that  may  at  first  provoke  mirth  because 
f  of  its  archaic  look,  its  wooden  hobby-horses  with 
their  square  legs,  the  battling  host  with  spears, 
and  the  strange  unlighted  landscape  at  the  back; 
but  this  is  one  of  the  notable  pictures  in  the  Na- 
tional Gallery,  and  contains  more  of  the  true  spirit 
of  art  than  the  supposed  Michelangelo  Entomb- 
ment hanging  opposite  it.  This  is  realistic  art  as 
early  Florence  understood  realism,  and  is  done  with 
great  sincerity  and  truth  to  the  point  of  view.  As 
composition,  the  picture  is  as  odd  as  Velasquez's 
Surrender  at  Breda  and  quite  as  forceful.  The 
spears  do  not  hurt,  but  help  the  composition.  They 
are  massed  at  the  left,  suggesting  in  their  upright 
lines  and  numbers  the  force  of  men  and  horse 
coming  up.  Then  as  they  come  forward  into  ac- 
tion, the  spears  are  gradually  lowered  to  the  diag- 
onal line,  following  the  suggestion  of  the  horizontal 
trumpets  and  the  baton  of  the  commander.  Finally 


134  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

they  fall  to  the  flat  horizontal  line  at  the  right, 
where  the  horsemen  are  contending  with  one  an- 
other. The  force  of  the  charge  is  cumulative,  well 
sustained  from  behind,  impressive  in  its  impetuous 
push.  And  how  the  group  of  mailed  warriors  at 
the  right  really  do  fight!  Paolo  knew  not  too 
much  about  figure  drawing,  but  how  surprisingly 
well  these  warriors  ride,  seated  deep  in  the  saddle, 
with  their  feet  pushing  hard  in  the  stirrups! 
What  real  armour  they  wear!  And  what  real 
figures  under  the  armour!  The  white  horse  of 
Carlo  Malatesta  holds  the  centre  of  the  picture  and 
catches  the  eye,  and  the  white  horse  at  the  right, 
the  white  banner  over  head,  are  repetitions  of  the 
note.  That  white  banner  with  its  pattern  is  art, 
and  would  have  the  art  spirit  with  everything  else 
in  the  picture  omitted.  But  you  need  omit  noth- 
ing. Look  again  at  the  beauty  of  the  trappings, 
the  splendour  of  the  costumes.  As  for  the  heads, 
there  are  only  two  without  visors,  Carlo  Mala- 
testa and  back  of  him  the  gallant  little  nephew 
with  the  golden  hair.  What  heads  they  are,  how 
fearless  and  noble!  And  how  the  men  ride  at  the 
foe!  At  the  back  of  the  figures,  how  beautiful 
the  rose  hedge  with  the  note  of  the  oranges  right 
and  left,  and  the  note  repeated  in  the  figures 
in  the  distance!  Paolo's  perspective  is  not  per- 
fect, but  see  how  he  has  given  the  sloping  fields 
and  the  small  running  figures  upon  them.  Though 
somewhat  injured,  it  is  a  superb  example  of  early 
Florentine  art.  Sit  down  and  study  it.  It  is, 
perhaps,  all  told,  the  best  decorative  picture  in 
the  gallery.  Think  of  it  as  a  piece  of  tapestry. 
1188.  Ugolino  da  Siena.  Betrayal  of  Christ.  What 
good  grouping  and  what  excellent  colour!  The 


VALDES  LEAL  135 

panel  has  been  retouched  in  both  the  figures  and 
the  gold-work,  but  is  still  a  fine  piece  of  decoration. 
And  it  also  expressed  the  sentiment  and  feeling 
of  the  time  in  a  simple,  direct  way.  See  the  com- 
panion piece,  No.  1189. 

702.    Umbrian   School.      Madonna  and  Child.      It  is 

suggested  in  the  catalogue  that  Pinturicchio  may 
have  done  this  picture  in  his  early  time;  but  the 
workmanship  is  not  "early"  for  any  one  as  may 
be  seen  by  the  hair  and  the  head-dress.  There 
is  work  akin  to  this,  in  fact  the  same  composition, 
in  the  Louvre  put  down  to  Perugino's  School  (No. 
1573),  and  also  in  the  Budapest  Gallery  (No.  83) 
put  down  to  Pinturicchio,  to  whom  they  all  prob- 
ably belong.  It  is  attractive  in  sentiment  and 
colour. 

912  1  Story  of  Criselda.     In  three  acts  and  a  great 

913  )  many  scenes.     It  is  not  bad  story  telling  nor  bad 

914  J  decoration  for  a  wedding  chest  or  wall  panel,  but 

it  is  not  the  high-water  mark  of  technical  excel- 
lence. Probably  done  by  some  weak  follower  of 
Signorelli. 

646  \ St.   Catherine   and  St.    Ursula.     Two   panels 

647  /  of  rich  colour  and  minute  workmanship  in  jewels 

and  robe-borders.  They  are  a  bit  glassy  in  the 
surfaces.  The  painter  is  probably  some  Peru- 
gino  follower.  [Now  (1913)  given  to  School  of 
Marches.] 

1291.  Valdes  Leal,  Juan  de.  Assumption  of  Virgin. 
The  Madonna  is  merely  pretty,  with  affected 
hands;  and  the  angels  are  of  the  same  character. 
The  donors  at  the  bottom  are  much  better.  The 
colour  is  rather  good,  but  not  wonderful. 


136  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

745  \  Velasquez,  Diego  de  Silva  y.  Portraits  of 
1129  /  Philip  IV.  An  estimate  or  judgment  of  the  gen- 

**  uineness  or  style  of  a  given  painter's  pictures  must 
be  based  upon  his  best  pictures  as  a  criterion, 
and  not  on  his  worst  or  mediocre  work.  This  is 
quite  necessary  in  the  cases  of  painters  like 
Raphael,  Rubens,  and  Rembrandt,  who  had  large 
folio  wings  of  pupils  and  imitators.  These  fol- 
lowers did  school  and  workshop  pieces  (often- 
times under  the  eye  of  the  master),  which  have 
been  erroneously  used  as  standards  by  which  the 
master's  work  has  been  judged.  Hence  some  of 
the  confusion  in  attributions  found  in  the  Euro- 
pean galleries  at  the  present  day.  As  for  Velas- 
quez, he  had  a  picture  factory  at  Madrid  for 
supplying  portraits  of  the  reigning  family;  and 
Mazo,  Pareja,  and  half  a  dozen  others  worked  in 
it.  Their  pictures  are  today  often  found  pass- 
ing current  as  the  works  of  Velasquez.  We 
should  try  to  discriminate  between  the  work  of 
the  master  and  the  work  of  the  school  not  by 
cock-sure  assertion,  but  by  close  examination  of 
the  works  themselves.  Here  in  the  National  Gal- 
lery, for  instance,  there  is  one  picture  by  Velas- 
quez that  by  its  quality  and  technique  asserts 
itself  positively  as  by  Velasquez,  and  in  his  best 
vein.  It  is  universally  accepted  as  his  work. 
This  picture  is  the  small  bust  portrait  of  Philip 
(No.  745).  It  should  be  used  as  a  criterion  of 
Velasquez's  method  and  manner  in  this  gallery, 
not  because  it  is  the  most  convincing  portrait 
he  ever  painted,  but  because  it  is  the  only  one 
at  hand  in  the  gallery.  Stand  in  the  middle  of 
the  room  and  examine  it  closely,  beginning  at  the 
hair  on  the  brow  and  on  the  side  of  the  head  down 


VELASQUEZ  137 

to  the  collar.  Note  its  fluffy  quality  and  the 
exact  yet  delicate  truth  of  its  high  lights.  Then 
examine  the  forehead  for  its  bone  structure,  its 
roundness,  with  the  beautiful  modelling  of  the 
eyebrows.  Then  the  eyes  with  their  dull,  care- 
worn look,  the  fine  drawing  of  the  lids,  the  nose 
and  mouth  with  the  full  lips,  and  the  moustache. 
Study  also  the  heavy  but  rather  weak  chin  and 
the  somewhat  flabby  cheeks  with  the  slightly 
wrinkled  neck.  Philip  is  growing  old  here,  and 
looks  a  bit  tired.  How  absolutely  Velasquez  in- 
dicates this  in  line,  texture,  hue!  Every  touch  is 
certainty  itself.  It  could  not  be  improved  upon. 
Now  in  the  standing  portrait  of  Philip  (No. 
1129),  the  King  is  a  younger  man.  Velasquez, 
too,  had  he  painted  the  portrait,  would  have  been 
younger  and  would  have  had  a  less  mature  method 
than  in  the  bust  portrait  (No.  745).  It  would 
not  have  been  a  different,  but  an  earlier  method. 
But  is  that  what  we  find  in  the  standing  portrait? 
Is  it  an  earlier  brush,  an  earlier  handling,  or 
another  hand  and  style?  Is  it  not  some  one  try- 
ing to  follow  Velasquez  but  not  possessed  of  the 
master's  skill,  ease,  and  certainty?  Compare  the 
pictures  inch  by  inch — by  hair  and  skulls,  by 
brows,  eyes,  noses,  moustaches,  mouths,  chins, 
cheeks,  flesh  colour — and  you  cannot  fail  to  see 
there  is  some  difference.  The  standing  figure  is 
more  crude  in  the  hair  and  in  its  light,  more  flat 
in  the  modelling  of  the  forehead,  brighter  in  the 
eyes,  much  more  wiry  in  the  moustache,  harder 
in  the  lips,  chin  and  jaw-line,  less  true  in  the 
neck,  more  pallid  in  the  flesh  notes.  Unfor- 
tunately the  costume  of  the  bust  portrait  is  in- 
sufficient to  carry  out  a  further  comparison  save 


138  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

in  the  ruff,  which  is  softer  and  of  a  different  qual- 
ity from  that  in  the  standing  portrait,  and  in  the 
gold  chain  and  buttons  which  should  be  compared 
with  those  in  the  standing  portrait  to  ascertain 
which  is  the  truer  and  more  realistic  in  appearance. 
There  can  be  but  one  result  of  such  a  comparison. 
The  work  in  the  standing  portrait  is  inferior  to 
that  of  the  bust  portrait.  In  the  former  you  can 
hardly  distinguish  the  buttons  from  the  white 
pattern  on  the  cloth.  And  notice,  if  you  please, 
that  the  white  pattern  is  not  so  much  in  the 
brown  cloth  but  on  it — that  it  is  not  so  much 
woven  texture  but  white  paint  on  the  brown 
cloth.  This  is  a  marked  peculiarity  of  Mazo, 
son-in-law  and  pupil  of  Velasquez.  Go  on  with 
the  scrutiny  of  the  white  pattern  crossing  the 
bust.  Can  you  make  out  the  pattern?  The 
white  pattern  at  the  back  of  the  chair — what  is 
it  and  where  does  it  belong?  Take  up  the  sleeves 
and  their  slashings  and  look  at  them  for  a  few 
minutes.  Are  you  looking  at  stuff — silk,  lace, 
wool,  cotton,  what  you  will — or  at  criss-crossed 
slashes  of  paint  in  the  style  of  Mazo  again?  And 
what  about  the  hat?  What  is  it  trimmed  with — 
feathers,  silk,  cloth?  Or  is  it  again  only  dabs 
of  paint?  Note  the  breeches  with  rosettes  of  cloth 
at  the  knees.  Do  the  rosettes  look  like  rosettes  or 
are  they  once  more,  owing  to  ineffective  drawing 
and  handling,  mere  slashes  of  paint?  As  for  the 
white  stockings,  are  they  white  stockings  stretched 
over  real  legs,  or  merely  legs  of  wood  painted 
white?  In  each  instance  the  brush  is  broad 
enough,  free  enough,  but  not  true  enough.  Had 
it  been  done  by  Velasquez,  each  stroke  would 
have  counted  as  drawing,  light,  colour,  texture, 


VELASQUEZ  139 

where  now  it  counts  so  largely  as  paint.  The 
red  curtain  at  the  back  might  be  dissected  in  the 
same  way  to  show  that  it  is  unlike  Velasquez's 
work,  that  it  is  not  too  accurately  drawn,  and  is 
not  quite  true  in  tone,  but  enough  has  been  ana- 
lysed to  form  a  tentative  opinion  at  least.  The 
standing  portrait  of  Philip  is  possibly  not  an  early 
Velasquez  in  which  he  shows  a  hard  and  immature 
style.  It  is  not  at  all  like  the  even  earlier  Philip 
(No.  1182)  and  the  Infante  Don  Carlos  (No. 
1188)  in  the  Prado.  It  is  possibly  the  work  of  a 
pupil  or  what  is  called  a  school  piece,  done  by 
Velasquez's  orders  and  under  his  eyes  for  some 
monarch  of  Europe.  Mazo  was  probably  the 
pupil  that  did  it. 

Portrait    of    the    Spanish    Admiral   Pulido- 

Pareja.  This  is  a  more  imposing-looking  pic- 
ture than  the  full-length  of  Philip  (No.  1129),  but 
it  is  quite  as  lax  in  its  drawing  and  handling.  The 
hair  is  done  freely  in  its  high  lights,  but  not  cer- 
tainly, the  forehead  projects,  but  is  done  coarsely 
as  are  also  the  eyebrows.  The  eyes  themselves 
are  curious  in  drawing,  especially  the  left  one, 
the  nose  is  sharp  and  ill-shaped,  the  mouth  is 
fumbled,  the  moustache  flat,  the  neck  uncertain 
in  shadow  and  in  drawing.  When  it  comes  to 
the  collar,  it  is  apparent  that  there  is  slashing 
about  with  a  free  brush  but  no  convincing  results 
following  it.  Just  so  with  the  right  sleeve — a  re- 
minder of  the  right  sleeve  of  the  standing  Philip — 
while  the  left  sleeve  presents  a  badly  drawn  arm. 
The  gloves  are  done  like  those  in  the  Philip,  as 
are  also  the  legs,  the  coarse  feet,  and  the  general 
poise  of  the  figure.  Notice  the  bows  or  rosettes 
at  the  knees,  which  are  false  in  value  and  look 


140  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

not  like  bows  but  like  dabs  of  paint,  as  in  the 
Philip.  The  blacks  are  not  badly  done,  and  the 
black  hat  is  certainly  effective  enough.  The  con- 
clusion reached  can  be  none  other  than  that  the 
work  is  probably  by  the  same  hand  that  did  No. 
1129.  Stand  back  and  compare  the  general  ap- 
pearances of  the  two  at  a  distance  and  perhaps 
such  a  conclusion  will  be  strengthened.  Beruete 
gives  the  Philip  to  Velasquez  and  the  Admiral  to 
Mazo;  but  Maze's  brush  is  apparent  in  them  both. 

1148.   Christ  at  the  Column.     A  picture  of  much 

**  pathos,  beauty,  and  even  power.  The  figure  of 
X  Christ  is  roundly  modelled,  with  a  feeling  of  drag 
and  weight  about  it,  and  perhaps  an  attempt  to 
give  a  swollen  effect  to  the  otherwise  over-large 
hands.  The  pathos  of  the  figure  is  extraordinary. 
And  what  could  be  more  tender  or  beautiful  in 
sentiment  than  the  angel  and  the  little  child  in 
blue-white  with  praying  hands!  The  figures  of 
these  latter  are  fairly  well  drawn  and  simply 
painted  with  a  fine  feeling  for  colour  in  the  strange 
dark  reds  and  orange  back  of  the  bluish  white. 
It  is  an  excellent  picture.  Is  it  Velasquez?  When 
and  where,  in  what  other  picture,  did  Velasquez 
ever  show  such  sentiment  and  pathos — ever  show 
any  sentiment  of  any  kind?  Even  his  Christ  on 
the  Cross  was  painted  with  the  face  partly  hidden, 
in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  emotional  play  of  it. 
He  was  a  man  who  painted  things  as  they  are 
without  sentiment  or  emotion.  Again  when  and 
where  did  he  use  such  a  colour  scheme — such  col- 
ours? When  and  where  did  he  ever  do  such  draw- 
ing and  painting  of  the  nude  figure  as  is  here  shown? 
The  texture  of  the  flesh,  its  lead  colour,  the  loosely 
articulated  figure  itself,  are  all  different  from  the 


VELASQUEZ  141 

Mars,  the  Vulcan,  the  Bacchus,  the  Christ  on  the 
Cross  at  Madrid.  It  is  excellent  work,  but  it 
does  not  agree  with  the  excellent  work  of  Velas- 
quez. No  one  knows  who  painted  it,  but  the 
same  hand  that  painted  this  also  did  the  por- 
trait in  the  Budapest  Gallery  (No.  311),  there 
strangely  ascribed  to  Murillo.  Somewhat  too 
much  cleaned.  The  halo  back  of  the  head  of 
Christ  is  now  not  golden  but  greenish. 

1057.   Venus  and  Cupid.    This  is  the  well-known 

**  Rokeby  Venus  over  which  there  has  been  more 
y  or  less  discussion  as  to  whether  it  was  done  by 
Velasquez  or  by  his  son-in-law  Mazo.  To  one 
quite  outside  the  controversy,  it  is  apparently  by 
neither;  but  nevertheless  a  fine  picture.  The 
attitude  of  prayer  before  it  if  a  Velasquez,  and  of 
scoffing  at  it  if  a  Mazo  is,  of  course,  somewhat 
ridiculous.  Judged  on  its  merits,  it  is  a  superb 
piece  of  drawing,  and,  before  it  was  flayed  by 
cleaning,  it  must  have  been  quite  a  wonderful 
figure.  Even  now  it  has  great  beauty  of  line  in 
the  back,  neck,  hip,  and  leg.  What  a  swing  that 
long  line  has !  The  cut-in  at  the  waist  finds  some 
who  object;  the  rest  of  the  body,  sustained  by  the 
arm,  is  almost  perfect,  and  the  poise  of  the  head 
is  charming.  The  left  shoulder  has  been  too 
much  cleaned  and  the  ruddy  quality  of  the  flesh 
may  be  exaggerated  now  because  the  white  high 
lights  have  been  rubbed  off  or  neutralised.  But 
it  is  a  superb  figure  just  as  it  is.  The  leg  is  espe- 
cially beautiful  in  its  drawing.  The  drapery  under 
the  figure  strengthens  the  main  line  by  repeating 
it.  The  Cupid  and  the  curtain,  the  latter  not  at 
all  like  Velasquez,  are  acceptable,  while  the  mir- 
ror and  the  face  within  it  are  true  in  value,  excel- 


142  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

lent  in  every  way,  and  more  like  Velasquez  than 
any  other  portion  of  the  picture.  It  is  a  command- 
ing picture  of  much  excellence.  Who  did  it? 
Who  knows?  Judged  merely  by  the  drawing 
and  handling  of  the  hair,  flesh,  and  draperies,  it 
appears  to  have  been  done  by  some  one  very 
close  to  the  painter  of  the  Christ  at  the  Column 
(No.  1148).  Compare  them  for  the  long,  rather 
fluid  stroke  of  the  brush  as  shown  in  the  ribbons 
and  draperies,  and  also  to  a  less  extent  in  the  hair, 
arms,  and  legs.  But  this  is  by  no  means  conclu- 
sive. 

1375.    Christ  in  the  House  of  Martha.     It  is  in  the 

^j  style  of  the  young  Velasquez,  but  aside  from  the 
good  still-life  on  the  table,  it  is  not  of  much  im- 
portance, no  matter  who  may  have  done  it.  The 
composition,  oddly  enough,  reminds  one  of  the 
still-life  pictures  with  figures  by  Pieter  Aertsen. 

1434.   The  Betrothal.     A  fine  piece  of  colour,  with 

some  good  drawing  and  free  handling.  A  pic- 
ture of  considerable  distinction  and  done  by  a 
painter  of  more  than  usual  skill.  There  is  noth- 
ing about  its  drawing,  handling,  or  colouring,  how- 
ever, that  points  to  Velasquez.  In  the  Velasquez 
room  at  the  Prado  it  would  look  like  an  odd  num- 
ber. There  are  worse  pictures  there  than  this, 
but  the  point  is  that  this  is  of  a  different  make 
and  kind.  Note  how  free  the  handling  in  the 
red  dress,  the  table-cloth,  the  flowers.  It  was  pos- 
sibly done  by  a  late  Italian  rather  than  by  a 
Spaniard. 

197.    Philip  IV  Hunting  the  Wild  Boar.     A  good 

decorative  landscape  with  much  truth  of  obser- 
vation in  the  hills  and  woods  of  the  background. 


VERMEER  OF  DELFT  143 

The  figures  are  effective  as  colour.  They  do  not 
indicate  Velasquez  so  much  as  some  pupil  close 
to  him.  This  is  even  more  apparent  in  the  horses 
and  dogs.  The  picture  was  possibly  done  by  the 
painter  of  the  little  group  of  thirteen  figures  in 
the  Louvre  (No.  1734),  but  he  was  not  Velasquez. 
Much  repainted. 

978.    Velde   the   Younger,  Willem  van  de.    River 

*      Scene.     Similar  in  subject  to  the  two  large  Van 

,/•     de  Cappelles  and  perhaps  finer  in  quality.     The 

p    sky   is   superb   and  the  light   just  about   right 

for  a  perfect  tone  effect.     How  well  the  boats 

are  drawn  and  how  flat  the  water!    The  surface 

has  been  too  much  rubbed. 

595.  Venetian  School.  Portrait  of  a  Lady.  An  at- 
tractive type  and  not  a  bad  portrait.  It  is  well 
drawn  and  has  some  sense  of  colour.  There  is  in 
the  shoulders  and  in  the  ample  folds  of  drapery 
a  superficial  suggestion  of  Palma  Vecchio.  The 
catalogue  rather  favours  an  ascription  to  Antonio 
Badile. 

383.    Vermeer  (or  Vati  der  Meet)  of  Delft,  Jan. 

Young  Lady  at  the  Virginals.  This  picture  was 
painted  by  the  painter  of  No.  2528  in  the  Rijks 
Museum,  No.  625  at  The  Hague,  and  No.  2568 
in  this  gallery.  They  are  all  of  them  perplexing 
pictures,  and  must  have  been  done  by  Vermeer 
in  degeneracy,  or,  more  likely,  by  a  facile  imitator, 
a  pseudo-Vermeer — perhaps  some  Hoogstraaten 
or  Ochtervelt  of  the  brush.  The  pictures  men- 
tioned do  not  agree  with  Vermeer's  work  at 
Dresden  (No.  1336),  or  at  Berlin  (No.  912s),  or 
with  the  Delft  landscape  at  The  Hague  (No.  92), 
or  the  figure-piece  (No.  406)  at  The  Hague,  or 


144  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

the  portraits  at  Budapest  (No.  456)  and  Brus- 
sels (No.  665).  The  imitator,  if  he  be  that,  is 
clever.  This  picture,  for  instance,  has  good 
light,  and  good  if  sharp  drawing  in  the  furniture, 
the  room,  and  the  figure.  In  fact,  this  is  the  best 
example  of  the  imitator.  That  it  is  an  imitator 
and  not  Vermeer  in  decline  is  suggested  by  the 
sharpness  of  the  drawing  and  the  badness  of  it 
in  the  arms,  hands,  and  head,  the  ineffectual 
white  dotting  on  the  borders  of  the  sleeve  or  on 
the  hair,  the  spotty  high  lights  on  the  necklace, 
the  picture  frame,  the  chair-nails,  and,  most  of 
all,  by  the  hard  porcelain  quality  of  everything 
in  the  picture  and  the  absence  of  air  or  envelope. 
The  picture  has  some  good  qualities  of  texture 
and  light,  but  it  is  utterly  different  from  Ver- 
meer's  work — as  different  as  Netscher  is  from 
Terborch. 

2568.    Lady  Seated  at   the    Virginals.     This  is  by 

the  painter  of  No.  1383 — the  decadent  Vermeer 
or  his  facile  imitator.  It  has  the  same  vices. 
Note  the  hard  quality  of  the  curtain,  the  cello, 
the  marbled  side  of  the  spinet,  the  chair  back, 
the  lady's  white  sleeve  and  her  blue  dress.  They 
are  all  as  hard  as  tin.  There  is  spotty  dotting 
on  the  curtain,  the  sleeve,  the  necklace,  and  in  the 
hair  around  the  forehead.  What  bad  arms  and 
hands!  And  again  the  absence  of  atmospheric 
setting!  The  signature  is  too  prominent.  It  doth 
protest  too  much. 

1041.    Veronese,    Paolo    Caliari.     St.  Helena.    Time 
*       was  when  this  picture  was  thought  to  be  of  the 
School    of   Paolo  Veronese,  but    it   is    now   as- 
signed to  Paolo  himself.     It  hardly  deserves  its 


VERONESE,  PAOLO  145 

promotion.  Some  follower  of  Paolo's  was  prob- 
ably responsible  for  it.  It  is  a  rather  good 
picture,  nevertheless.  The  colour  of  it  is  its 
main  beauty.  The  figure  is  well  indicated  though 
the  drapery  is  a  little  curious  in  its  high  lights  and 
the  drawing  is  lacking.  There  has  been  too  much 
scrubbing  and  rubbing  of  the  canvas.  The  face 
and  the  jaw-line  indicate  it.  The  sky  is  gone 
and  now  looks  painty. 

931.    The  Magdalen  Laying  Aside  Her  Jewels.     It  is 

attractive  in  colour  as  in  light  and  shade  with 
^/  stately  if  slight  figures  well  grouped  about  the 
kneeling  Magdalen.  In  the  spirit  of  Paolo,  but 
more  likely  by  some  one  in  his  workshop  or  of  his 
school.  It  is  a  little  effeminate  in  the  figure  and 
wanting  in  colour  quality  for  the  master. 

268.    Adoration    of    the    Magi.      A    fine    piece    of 

*  colour  with  an  old-tapestry  quality  about  it  that 
"*  is  excellent  as  decoration.  A  well-composed  pic- 
ture with  much  grandeur  of  effect  in  the  archi- 
tecture, the  Madonna,  the  Magi,  and  their  follow- 
ing. The  figures  and  the  robes  they  wear  are 
quite  regal.  There  is  life  and  movement  in  the 
group,  even  in  the  camel  driver  with  his  upraised 
whip  at  the  back.  All  the  lines  lead  up  to  the 
Madonna  and  Child,  the  eye  first  grasping  at  the 
kneeling  king  in  red  and  following  from  left  to 
right  up  by  the  first  king  to  the  Child.  The  shep- 
herds at  the  right  lead  up  again,  the  group  at  the 
back  come  forward,  the  flight  of  little  cherubim 
comes  down  on  the  shaft  of  light.  The  drawing 
in  hands  and  arms  is  not  very  good,  the  people 
and  horses  are  slight  for  Paolo,  the  textures, 
colouring,  and  handling  are  hardly  his,  although 


146  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

by  no  means  inferior  or  bad.  Compare  the  pic- 
ture with  The  Family  of  Darius  (No.  294)  near 
at  hand.  It  is  probably  a  school  piece,  but  that 
does  not  mean  something  next  door  to  a  copy. 
On  the  contrary,  there  are  many  pictures  that 
can  be  located  no  nearer  than  the  school  and 
yet  are  works  of  marked  excellence — this  one, 
for  instance. 

294.    The  Family  of  Darius  at  the  Feet  of  Alex- 

**  ander.  A  well-known  picture  in  Paolo's  ornate 
style — a  style  that  is  splendid,  even  gorgeous, 
without  being  theatrical  or  overdone.  It  is  beau- 
tifully painted  throughout,  from  the  kneeling  fig- 
ures in  brocades  and  jewels  to  the  magnificent 
Alexander  in  magenta  costume  with  trappings  of 
gold.  The  group  surrounding  Alexander  is  won- 
derfully well  realised,  and  the  attendants  of  the 
family  at  the  left  looking  in  have  a  pathetic  as 
well  as  a  truthful  interest.  They  are  looking  in 
and  wondering  what  is  to  be  the  fate  of  their 
mistresses.  They  have  even  brought  the  family 
spaniels  in  their  arms  to  share  their  misery.  The 
background  of  the  picture  is  less  well  given,  and 
may  have  been  done  by  another  hand.  For  the 
architecture  with  the  figures  on  the  balcony  is 
not  quite  true  in  tone — not  in  nor  of  the  picture. 
Somewhat  restored. 

26.    Consecration   of  St.   Nicholas.     A  dark  pic- 

*  ture  with  large  figures  of  commanding  dignity 
and  considerable  splendour  of  costume  and  robes. 
It  has  not  the  flat,  decorative  effect  of  No.  268 
hanging  near  it,  but  on  the  contrary  is  more  of  an 
effort  at  light,  air,  and  distance  with  depth  of 
colour  and  shadow.  Note  the  white  robe,  the 


VERROCCHIO  147 

head-dresses,  the  fine  kneeling  figure,  the  descend- 
ing angel,  the  sky,  the  column.  This  is  the  true 
Paolo,  whereas  the  No.  268  is  of  the  family  or 
School  of  Paolo. 

1318  \  Unfaithfulness,  Scorn,  Respect,  Happy  Union. 

1326  /  Four  allegorical  pictures  that  are  not  altogether 
happy  in  their  doing  nor  in  the  best  condition  at 
the  present  time.  The  back  of  the  woman  in  the 
Unfaithfulness  has  been  flayed  and  the  Happy 
Union  has  suffered  in  every  part.  The  pictures 
contain  admirable  scraps  and  bits  of  drawing 
and  modelling,  the  Cupid  in  the  Respect,  for 
instance;  but  in  the  same  picture  the  attitude  of 
the  man  and  the  nude  figure  with  one  leg  leave 
something  to  be  desired,  even  though  the  theme  be 
allegory  and  not  realism.  The  colour  of  all  four 
pictures  is  decorative.  They  were  probably  ex- 
ecuted in  Paolo's  workshop  by  his  pupils. 

296.    Verrocchio,    Andrea.      Virgin    Adoring   Child. 

The  angel  at  the  right  is  the  same  angel  type  that 
>  appears  in  Verrocchio's  Baptism  of  Christ  (No. 
71)  in  the  Florence  Academy,  while  the  Child  is 
a  reminder  of  Lorenzo  di  Credi.  It  is  probably 
a  Verrocchio  workshop  picture,  but  one  of  much 
charm  and  beauty.  The  angel  with  the  lilies 
and  the  beautifully  drawn  face  and  hands  is 
notably  fine.  The  Madonna  is  of  Pollajuolo 
height.  The  draperies  and  brocades  are  well 
done  and  the  colour  excellent.  Notice  the  accu- 
racy of  the  gold  work  in  the  borders  of  the  robes 
and  the  minute  drawing  of  the  hair,  which  does 
not  produce  a  wiry  effect  but  rather  the  lightness 
and  fluffiness  of  hair.  The  Tobias  and  Angel  in 
this  gallery  (No.  781),  formerly  attributed  to  Bot- 


148  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

ticini  but  now  to  the  School  of  Verrocchio,  shows 
workmanship  similar  to  this  picture  (No.  296), 
and  both  are  related  to  the  attributed  Verrocchios 
at  Berlin  (Nos.  104A  and  108). 

2509.    Vivarini,    Alvise.      Portrait    of   a    Youth.     A 

*  strong  head  done  with  great  precision  and  truth 
to  fact  as  also  with  some  beauty  of  colour  in  the 
dress  and  hair.  In  nobility  of  mien  and  calm 
serenity  such  portraiture  as  this  belongs  with  the 
work  of  Bellini  and  Antonello  da  Messina. 

2095.   The    Man    in    Black.     The    blackness    has 

spread  to  the  face,  which  is  now  somewhat  sooty, 
possibly  from  underlying  blacks.  A  powerful 
head  of  the  same  general  character  as  No.  2509, 
though  it  may  not  be  by  the  same  hand.  The 
outline  a  little  severe. 

2672.    A    Venetian    Gentleman.     The   blue   coat   is 

decidedly  disturbing  and  the  face  has  been  re- 
touched, but  there  is  small  doubt  about  its  being 
a  genuine  if  dull  Alvise. 

768.    Vivarini,  Antonio.     St.  Peter  and  St.  Jerome. 

Where  will  you  find  greater  purity  and  depth  of 
colour  than  here?  The  tempera  painting  of  the 
Muranese  and  the  Venetians  has  never  been  sur- 
passed for  the  preservation  of  colours  in  their 
purity.  Crivelli,  following  the  Vivarini,  is  an 
illustration.  Note  the  gold  work,  the  borders  of 
the  robes,  the  flowers. 

1248.    St.    Francis    and   St.    Mark.     A    companion 

piece  to  No.  768,  and  of  the  same  quality.  They 
were  doubtless  parts  of  an  altar-piece.  Note  the 
beauty  of  the  roses — hard  as  they  are — and  again 
the  gold  work  and  the  robe  borders. 


ZURBARAN  149 

284.  Vivarini,  Bartolommeo.  Virgin  and  Child  with 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Jerome.  The  hands  are  man- 
nered and  the  faces  hard,  as  though  carved  from 
wood,  but  there  is  very  honest  feeling  in  the  work 
and  much  rich  decorative  effect  in  the  gold  and 
colours.  The  head-dress  of  the  Madonna  is  at- 
tractive. 

1433.    Weyden,  Roger  van  der.    Portrait  of  a  Lady. 

A  beautiful  portrait  with  a  half -French  look  about 
%  it.  Cleaned  too  much,  but  very  lovely  still  in 
its  outline,  its  fine  type,  its  quaint  head-dress, 
and  its  colour.  It  is  not  representative  of  Van 
der  Weyden  nor  are  Nos.  711  and  712,  attributed 
to  him.  [Now  (1913)  given  to  Flemish  School.] 

973.  Wouwerman,  Philips.  Sandbank  with  Bath- 
ers. Attractive  in  its  light  and  air  as  also  in  its 
unusual  subject.  What  a  very  good  sandbank 
and  water! 

883.  Wynants,  Jan.  Landscape.  A  Wynants  rather 
brittle  in  the  sky  and  somewhat  niggled  in  the 
foreground,  but  perhaps  of  better  quality  in  light 
and  air  than  is  usual  with  this  painter.  He  was 
a  mediocre  soul  or  at  least,  in  common  with  Ever- 
dingen,  Hobbema,  and  the  Ruisdaels,  he  turned 
out  a  great  quantity  of  mediocre  pictures. 

230.    Zurbaran,   Francisco    de.    Franciscan   Monk. 

One  of  Zurbaran's  ecstatic  monks  of  which  he  did 
enough  and  to  spare.  The  spirit  of  it  is  dark  and 
gloomy,  like  that  of  Ribera,  but  the  drawing 
and  painting  are  not  bad.  The  colour  is  sombre 
and  not  very  decorative  or  pleasing. 

232.   Nativity.     A  later  work  than  'No.  1930  and 

with  a  more  realistic  effect  in  such  features  as 


150  NATIONAL  GALLERY 

the  heads,  the  hands  of  the  peasants,  the  bread 
basket,  the  chicken.  The  shadows  are  dark  and 
the  colour  is  of  corresponding  quality.  The  face 
of  the  Madonna  is  hurt  by  cleaning. 

1930.    Portrait  of  a  Lady  as  St.  Margaret.     It  is  a 

hard  piece  of  drawing,  as  one  may  see  by  the  face 
and  hat,  but  it  has  great  simplicity,  honesty,  and 
truth  about  it.  The  colour  is  excellent,  but  the 
spirit  of  it  is  better.  Cleaned  too  much,  espe- 
cially in  the  left  hand  where  the  modelling  is  de- 
stroyed. 


INDEX   OF  PICTURES   BY  NUMBERS 


1.  Piombo. 

4.  Titian. 

10.  Correggio. 

13.  Murillo. 

14.  Claude  Lorraine. 

15.  Correggio. 

16.  Tintoretto. 

17.  Sarto,  A.  del. 

18.  Luini. 

19.  Claude  Lorraine. 

23.  Correggio. 

24.  Piombo. 

26.  Veronese. 

27.  Raphael. 

29.  Baroccio. 

30.  Claude  Lorraine. 

31.  Poussin,  G. 
33.  Parmigianino. 
34 

35. 

38.  Rubens. 

45.  Rembrandt. 

46.  Rubens. 


Titian. 


471 
51  / 


Rembrandt. 


52.   Dyck,  Anthony  van. 

54.   Rembrandt. 

57 

59 

62.    Poussin,  N. 


>  Rubens. 


66 
67 


Rubens. 


Francia. 


127.  Canaletto. 

152.  Neer,  A.  van  der. 

157.  Rubens. 

163.  Canaletto. 

166.  Rembrandt. 

168.  Raphael. 

172.  Caravaggio. 

173.  Bassano. 
176.  Murillo. 
179 

180 

181.  Perugino. 

184.  Lucidel. 

186.  Eyck,  J.  van. 

189.  Bellini,  Giovanni. 

190.  Rembrandt. 

194.  Rubens. 

195.  German  School. 
197.  Velasquez. 
207.  Maes. 

210.  Guardi. 

212.  Keyser. 

213.  Raphael. 
215 

216 

221.  Rembrandt. 

222.  Eyck,  J.  van. 

227.  Botticini. 

228.  Bassano,  J. 
2301 

232  J 

234.  Catena. 


>  Lorenzo  Monaco. 


Zurbaran. 


151 


152 


INDEX 


Rembrandt. 


Master  of  Werden. 


235.  Ribera. 

237 

243 

245.  Baldung. 

249.  Lorenzo  di  S.  Severino. 

2501 

253  J 

254  1 

„__  f  Master  of  Liesborn. 

264.  Flemish  School. 

268.  Veronese. 

269.  Giorgione. 

270.  Titian. 

274.  Mantegna. 

275.  Botticelli. 

276.  Spinello. 

277.  Bassano,  J. 

278.  Rubens. 

280.  Bellini,  Giovanni. 

281.  Basaiti. 

283.  Benozzo  Gozzoli. 

284.  Vivarini,  B. 

285.  Morone. 

286.  Tacconi. 

287.  Bartolommeo  Veneto. 

288.  Perugino. 

290.  Eyck,  J.  van. 

291.  Cranach. 

292.  Pollajuolo,  A. 

293.  Lippi,  Filippino. 

294.  Veronese. 

295.  Metsys. 

296.  Verrocchio. 

297.  Romanino. 

298.  Borgognone. 

299.  Moretto. 

300.  Cima. 

564.  Margaritone. 

565.  Cimabue. 


566. 

567. 

568. 

569 

575 

576 

579. 

580. 

581. 

583. 

585. 

592. 

593. 

595. 

596. 

597. 

599. 

624. 

625. 

626. 

629. 

631. 

6321 

633  J 

635. 

636. 

637. 

638. 

6461 

647  / 

648. 

649  \ 

651  / 

654. 

663. 

664. 

665. 

666  \ 

667  / 


Duccio. 

Segna  di  Buenaventura. 

Gaddi,  T. 

Orcagna. 

Niccold  di  Pietro  Gerini. 

Landini. 

Orcagna. 

Uccello,  P. 

Pollajuolo,  School  of. 

Botticelli. 

Credi. 

Venetian  School. 

Palmezzano. 

Cossa. 

Basaiti. 

Romano,  G. 

Moretto. 

Botticelli. 

Costa. 

Bissolo. 

Girolamo  da  Santa  Croce. 

Titian. 
Palma. 
Bordone. 
Francia. 

Umbrian  School. 
Credi. 
Bronzino,  A. 

Campin,  School  of. 
Angelico,  Fra. 
Bouts. 
Francesca,  P.  della. 

Lippi,  Fra  Filippo. 


INDEX 


153 


669. 

Ortolano. 

748. 

Girolamo  dai  Libri. 

671. 

Garofalo. 

750. 

Bellini,  School  of  Gentile. 

672. 

Rembrandt. 

757. 

Rembrandt  School. 

673. 

Antonello  da  Messina. 

758. 

Francesca,  P.  della. 

674. 

Bordone. 

768. 

Vivarini,  Ant. 

686. 

Memling. 

769. 

Francesca,  P.  della. 

690. 

Sarto,  A.  del. 

770. 

Oriolo. 

694. 
695. 

Catena. 
Previtali. 

772] 
773  J 

Tura. 

696. 

Christus. 

774. 

Bouts. 

697. 

Moroni. 

775. 

Rembrandt. 

698. 

Piero  di  Cosimo. 

776. 

Pisanello. 

699. 

Lotto. 

777. 

Morando. 

700. 

Lannini. 

778. 

Pellegrino  da  S.  Daniele. 

701. 

Justus  of  Padua. 

783. 

Flemish  School. 

702. 

Umbrian  School. 

788. 

Crivelli. 

703. 

Pinturicchio. 

790. 

Michelangelo. 

705. 

Lochner. 

794. 

Hooch,  P.  de. 

706. 
707. 

Master  of  Life  of  Virgin. 
Master  of  St.  Bartholo- 

8031 
804J 

1  Marziale. 

mew  Altar. 

807. 

Crivelli. 

709. 

Memling. 

808. 

Bellini,  Gentile. 

713. 

Prevost. 

809. 

Michelangelo. 

714. 

Orley. 

812. 

Bellini,  Giovanni. 

717. 

Patinir. 

816. 

Cima. 

719. 
720. 

Bles. 
Scorel. 

830 
831 

Hobbema. 

724. 
726. 

Crivelli. 
Bellini,  Giovanni. 

834 
835 

Hooch,  P.  de. 

727. 

Pesellino. 

836. 

Koninck,  P 

728. 

Boltraffio. 

839. 

Metsu. 

729. 

Foppa. 

850. 

Rembrandt. 

734. 
735. 

Solario. 
Morando. 

8521 
853  J 

•  Rubens. 

736. 

Bonsignori. 

854. 

Ruisdael,  J. 

739. 

Crivelli. 

856. 

Steen. 

742. 

Moroni. 

864. 

Terborch. 

744. 

Raphael. 

883. 

Wynants. 

745. 

Velasquez. 

895. 

Piero  di  Cosimo. 

154 


INDEX 


902.  Mantegna. 

905.  Tura. 

906.  Crivelli. 

908.  Francesca,  P.  della. 

909.  Benvenuto  di  Giovanni. 

910.  Signorelli. 

911.  Pinturicchio. 
912] 

913  \  Umbrian  School. 

914  J 

915.  Botticelli. 

916.  Sellajo. 
923.  Solario. 

927.  Lippi,  Filippino. 

928.  Pollajuolo,  A. 
931.  Veronese. 
937.  Canaletto. 
943.  Bouts. 

945.  Patinir. 

946.  Gossart. 

947.  Flemish  School. 
949.  Teniers. 


965] 

966 

967  J 

973. 

974. 

978. 

987 

989 

990 

995. 

1008. 

1009. 

1018. 

1022 

1023 

1024 


Cappelle. 

Wouwerman. 
Koninck,  P. 
Velde,  W.  van  de. 

Ruisdael,  J. 

Hobbema. 
Potter,  Pieter. 
Potter,  Paul. 
Claude  Lorraine. 

Moroni. 


Botticelli. 


Patinir. 


1025.  Moretto. 

1031.  Savoldo. 

1032.  Spagna,  Lo. 
10331 

1034  J 

1035.  Franciabigio. 

1036.  Flemish  School. 
1041.  Veronese. 
1045.  David. 

1047.  Lotto. 

1049.  German  School. 

1075.  Perugino. 

1077.  Borgognone. 

1081.  Flemish  School. 

10821 

1084  J 

1085.  Geertgen  tot  St.  Jans. 

1093.  Leonardo  da  Vinci. 

1094.  Moro. 
1098.  Mantegna. 

1103.  Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo. 

1104.  Manni. 

1105.  Lotto. 

1107.  Niccold  da  Foligno. 

1114 

1118 

1119.  Grandi. 

1120.  Cima. 

1121.  Catena. 

1123.  Giorgione,  School  of. 

1124.  Botticelli,  School  of. 

1125.  Mantegna. 

1126.  Botticini. 

1127.  Roberti. 

1128.  Signorelli. 

1129.  Velasquez. 

1133.  Signorelli. 

1134.  Liberale  da  Verona. 

1140.  Duccio. 

1141.  Antonello  da  Messina. 


>  Coques. 


INDEX 


155 


1143.  Ghirlandajo,  R. 

1147.  Lorenzetti,  A. 

1148.  Velasquez. 

1149.  Marco  d'Oggiono. 
1155.  Matteo  di  Giovanni. 
1160.  Giorgione. 

1165.  Moretto. 

1166.  Antonello  da  Messina. 

1171.  Raphael. 

1172.  Dyck,  Anthony  van. 

1173.  Giorgione,  School  of. 
1188.  Ugolino  da  Siena. 


1196. 
1216. 
1233. 
1234. 
1247. 
1248. 
1251. 
1252. 
1284. 
1291. 
1295. 
1298. 
1299. 
13021 
1303  j 
1313. 
1314. 
1315. 
1316. 
1317. 
1318. 
1323. 
1324] 
1325  \ 
326  J 


Tuscan  School. 

Spinello. 

Bellini. 

Dossi. 

Maes. 

Heist. 

Hals. 

Snyders. 

Vivarini,  Ant. 

Valdes  Leal. 

Giovenone. 

Patinir. 

Ghirlandajo,  D. 

Marmion. 

Tintoretto. 

Holbein. 

Velasquez. 

Moroni. 

Sienese  School. 

Veronese. 

Bronzino. 

Veronese. 


1327.  Goyen. 

1330.  Duccio. 

1331.  Fungai. 
1375.  Velasquez. 
1383.  Vermeer. 
1399.  Terborch. 

1411.  Roberti. 

1412.  Botticelli,  School  of. 

1417.  Mantegna. 

1418.  Antonello  da  Messina. 

1419.  French  School. 
1421.  Steen. 

1423.  Ravesteyn. 

1427.  Baldung. 

1431.  Perugino. 

1432.  David. 

1433.  Weyden. 

1434.  Velasquez. 

1436.  Pisanello. 

1437.  Barnaba  da  Modena. 

1440.  Bellini,  Gentile. 

1441.  Perugino. 
1450.  Piombo. 

1455.  Bellini,  Giovanni. 

1457.  Greco,  II. 

1465.  Ferrari,  Defendente. 

1466.  Orsi. 

1468.  Jacopo  di  Cione. 

1652.  Dutch  School. 


Rembrandt. 

1689.  Gossart. 

1694.  Bartolommeo,  Fra. 

1696.  Bellini,  Giovanni. 

1812.  Spagna,  Lo. 

1843.  Bonfigli. 

1847.  Signorelli. 


156 


INDEX 


1895.    Jordaens. 

2512. 

Correggio. 

1897.   Lorenzo  Monaco. 

2524. 

Guardi. 

1917.    Both. 
1925.    Cranach. 

25281 
2529  J 

Hals. 

1930.    Zurbaran. 

2539. 

Rembrandt. 

1937.   Heist. 

2547. 

Cuyp. 

1938.    Diire'r. 

2552. 

Hooch,  P.  de. 

1944.    Titian. 

25551 

2057.   Velasquez. 

2558  J 

bteen. 

2069.   Raphael. 

2568. 

Vermeer  of  Delft. 

2083.   Costa. 

2581. 

Maes. 

agOJMcretto. 

2583. 
2593. 

Potter,  Paul. 
Christus. 

2095.   Vivarini,  Alvise. 

2594. 

Memling. 

2127.    Dyck,  Anthony  van. 

2600. 

Teniers. 

2143.   Ochtervelt. 

2603. 

Cleve,  J.  van. 

2144.    Dyck,  Anthony  van. 

2604. 

Amberger. 

2163  1  „ 
22Uj  Gossart. 

2609} 

Campin. 

2251.   Predis,  A.  da. 
2285.   Hals. 

His} 

French  School. 

2475.   Holbein  the  Younger. 

2672. 

Vivarini,  Alvise. 

2483.   Fiorenzo  di  Lorenzo. 

2673. 

Boltraffio. 

2485.   Cesare  da  Sesto. 

2790. 

Gossart. 

2486.   Roberti. 

2862. 

Lorenzo  Monaco. 

2488.   Signorelli. 

2863. 

Benozzo,  School  of. 

2490.   Credi. 

2864. 

Lievens. 

2491.   Ghirlandajo,  R. 

2901. 

Bellini,  Giovanni. 

2495.   Cariani. 

2906. 

Botticelli. 

2498.   Basaiti. 

2907. 

Titian,  School  of. 

2500.   Previtali. 

2919. 

Raphael. 

2502.   Mainardi. 

2922. 

Master  of  Delft. 

2503.   Solario. 

2923. 

Carracci,  A. 

2505.    Cima. 

2924. 

Rubens. 

2507.   Bartolommeo  Veneto. 

2926. 

Mazo. 

2509.   Vivarini,  Alvise. 

2930. 

Ribalta. 

THE  WALLACE  COLLECTION 


NOTE  ON  THE  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

THE  Wallace  Collection  is  housed  in  the  former 
residence  of  Sir  Richard  Wallace,  Hertford  House, 
Manchester  Square.  The  collection  shows  the  indi- 
vidual taste  of  a  keen  collector  who  knew  the  meaning 
of  good  painting — painting  from  the  painter's  point  of 
view.  There  is  hardly  a  picture  in  the  collection  that 
has  not  some  merit  as  form  or  colour,  some  decorative 
value  as  art.  Preference  is  shown  for  the  work  of  the 
French  School  and  there  are  famous  examples  of 
Watteau,  Boucher,  Fragonard,  and  their  contemporaries 
and  a  long  gallery  devoted  to  the  moderns  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  Delacroix,  Couture,  Ingres,  Scheffer, 
Prudhon,  Corot,  Rousseau,  Dupre,  Diaz,  Daubigny. 
These  are  pictures  well  worth  the  student's  time  and 
attention.  They  are  not  treated  in  these  notes  but 
are  reserved  for  separate  treatment  (with  other  modern 
pictures)  hereafter. 

The  old  masters  of  Italy,  Holland,  or  Flanders  in  the 
Wallace  Collection  appear  somewhat  sporadically  and 
unexpectedly.  Apparently  there  never  was  an  attempt 
to  fill  out  schools  or  make  a  representation  of  art  history. 
A  fine  picture  was  picked  up  as  opportunity  offered, 
solely  because  it  was  fine,  and  not  because  it  would  fill 
a  historic  gap.  In  that  way  excellent  if  somewhat  unre- 
159 


160  NOTE  ON  THE  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

lated  pictures  came  into  the  collection.  Among  the 
Italian  pictures  one  might  cite  the  fine  Cima,  the 
Andrea  del  Sartos,  the  Luinis,  a  Bianchi,  a  Titian,  a 
North  Italian  portrait,  a  whole  roomful  of  Canalettos 
and  Guardis. 

There  is  perhaps  a  larger — certainly  a  more  notable 
— group  of  Dutch  pictures,  led  by  the  excellent  Laugh- 
ing Cavalier,  attributed  to  Hals,  and  supported  by 
some  famous  Rembrandts,  among  them  the  large  Cen- 
turion Cornelius  picture.  The  school  of  Rembrandt, 
Bol,  Flinck,  Drost,  and  others,  with  many  examples 
of  the  little  Dutchmen,  Terborch,  Metsu,  Netscher, 
Brouwer,  Teniers,  all  showing  good  craftsmanship, 
are  to  be  found,  with  portraits  by  Van  der  Heist,  in- 
teriors by  Pieter  de  Hooch,  landscapes  by  Camphuij- 
sen,  Ruisdael,  Hobbema.  Rubens,  Van  Dyck,  and  Jor- 
daens  are  about  the  only  painters  represented  among 
the  late  Flemings  but  they  are  seen  in  some  excellent 
examples,  especially  Jordaens. 

The  Portrait  of  a  Spanish  Lady  by  Velasquez  is  the 
best  work  of  the  Spanish  school,  though  there  are  good 
portraits  by  Mazo,  a  figure-piece  by  Cano,  and  a  num- 
ber of  large  and  important  Murillos.  The  English 
school  is  again  shown  in  some  celebrated  portraits  by 
Reynolds,  Gainsborough,  and  others.  The  German 
school  is  hardly  represented  at  all.  Yet  with  all  its 
blank  pages  the  Wallace  Collection  makes  a  famous 
showing,  and  the  long  room  of  the  gallery  is  a  place 
where  one  needs  to  stop  and  study. 


NOTE  ON  THE  WALLACE  COLLECTION  161 

The  catalogue  (with  illustrations)  is  excellent  in 
every  way,  with  an  absence  of  modern  cock-sureness, 
and  a  disposition  to  treat  many  questions  as  still  in 
process  of  solution.  Its  notes  should  be  accepted. 
The  building  in  which  the  pictures  are  shown  is  the 
town  house  of  an  English  gentleman  and  not  very  well 
adapted  to  exhibition  purposes  in  spite  of  alterations. 
The  light  is  not  always  good,  and  on  dark  days  elec- 
tricity has  to  be  used  in  some  of  the  rooms.  The 
proper  hanging  of  the  pictures  is  hampered  by  want  of 
space.  There  are  too  many  pictures  for  the  rooms, 
and  the  result  is  that  some  of  them  are  "  skied."  How- 
ever, there  is  little  use  in  quarrelling  over  such  matters. 
They  were  conditions  accepted  with  the  bequest. 


THE 
WALLACE   COLLECTION 


89.  Backer,  Jacob  Adriaenz.  Portrait  of  an  Old 
*  Woman.  In  Backer's  best  style  with  a  super- 
ficial resemblance  to  Hals  in  the  flesh  colour  and 
Rembrandt  in  the  drawing — especially  of  the 
hands.  It  is  a  fine  portrait.  Both  Hals  and 
Rembrandt  occasionally  did  poorer  work.  It  was 
signed  as  a  Rembrandt  and  passed  for  such  at 
one  time,  but  if  you  would  note  the  decided  dif- 
ference between  them,  carry  in  your  visual  mem- 
ory this  cap  with  its  side  wings  to  the  National 
Gallery  and  compare  it  in  texture  and  quality 
with  the  Rembrandt  (No.  775).  That  one  fea- 
ture will  give  a  clew  to  many  others. 

248.    Bakhuysen,  Ludolf .     Ships  in  a  Storm.    Not  a 

great  picture,  but  there  is  a  good  wind  blowing  and 
a  chop  sea  running.  It  has  movement  and  some 
spirit.  In  Bakhuysen's  usual  grey  key  of  colour 
and  light. 

525.    Beccafumi,  Domenico.    Judith  with  the  Head 

of  Holof ernes.  A  handsome  piece  of  colour,  but 
the  type  is  not  very  select  and  the  drawing  is 
rather  mannered.  Evidently  influenced  by  So- 
doma. 

543.    Benvenuto  di  Giovanni.    St.  Jerome  Chastising 

Himself.    Probably  a  part  of  a  predella,  as  the 
163 


164  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

catalogue  suggests.  The  figure  is  more  interest- 
ing than  the  head. 

2.    Bianchi,      Francesco.       Allegorical      Subject. 

*  What  beautiful  slender  figures  and  ideal  faces! 
The  drawing  is  not  so  frail  as  it  looks,  and  the 
lines  of  the  composition  are  very  graceful  in  their 
repetition  of  each  other.  With  an  idyllic  land- 
scape to  correspond.  W7hat  charm  the  whole 
picture  has!  The  attribution  is  questionable. 
The  picture  seems  more  Florentine  than  Fer- 
rarese,  though  just  who  did  it  is  not  very  appar- 
ent. 

74.  Bol,  Ferdinand.  The  Toper.  In  Bol's  smoother 
and  more  popular  manner  with  reminiscences  of 
Rembrandt  in  the  hands,  the  light,  and  the  colour. 
But  Bol  at  times  painted  more  vigorous  work 
than  this,  and  he  also  did  work  that  was  much 
weaker.  The  personality  of  Bol  is  better  estab- 
lished than  some  others  of  the  Rembrandt  School, 
but  there  are  still  gaps  in  his  artistic  biography. 
Others  of  the  school  did  work  of  this  kind  and 
quality. 

24 }  Both,  Jan.     Italian  Landscapes.    These  are  the 

28  /  kind  of  landscapes  that  Both  turned  out  with 

less    variety    than,    say,    Corot.     But    like    the 

Corots,  they  are  usually  pleasing  in  their  effects 

of  light. 

166.    Boursse,    L.     Interior:    Woman    Cooking.     The 

painter  is  still  in  doubt,  but  the  picture  speaks  for 
itself  as  something  truthful  and  beautiful,  done 
in  a  broad  way  as  regards  both  drawing  and  paint- 
ing. It  has  a  suggestion  of  Brekelenkam  about 
it,  but  the  signature  is  probably  genuine.  There 


CANO,  ALONZO  165 

would  be  no  object  in  forging  the  signature  of  so 
unknown  a  person  as  Boursse. 

211.    Brouwer,   Adriaen.     A  Boor   Asleep.     For  the 

deft  manipulation  of  paint  and  the  pure  skill  of 
painting  there  is  nothing  among  the  little  Dutch- 
men in  this  gallery  that  will  go  beyond  it.  The 
handling  is  simple  and  direct.  Even  Hals,  his 
master,  was  sometimes  more  laboured  and  often 
less  effective. 

132.    Camphuijsen,  Covert.     Dutch  Farm,  at  Sun- 

*  set.      A  coarse-grained    but   forceful   landscape. 
It  would  be  hard  to  find  its  equal  among  the 
examples    of    Ruysdael,    Hobbema,    Cuyp,    and 
Both,  here  or  elsewhere.     The  buildings  at  the 
left  are  not  more  beautiful  in  colour,  light,  and  air 
than  the  trees  at  the  right  in  their  Corotesque 
massing,   grouping,   and  blending  into  the  sky. 
And  what  a  fine  sky!     What   colour  and  what 
foreground  shadows!     Of  its  kind,  a  masterpiece. 
Worth  a  dozen  Berchems  or  Paul  Potters. 

498.  Canaletto,  Giovanni  Antonio.  The  Grand 
Canal.  There  are  a  number  of  large  Canalettos 
in  this  collection,  hanging  with  Guardis  in  one 
room.  Perhaps  Nos.  497,  499,  and  498  are  as 
good  examples  as  any.  They  are  large  and  rather 
impressive  pictures. 

15.    Cano,  Alonzo.      Vision  of  St.  John  the  Evangel- 

*  1st.     It  is  a  beautiful  picture.     The  face  of  the 
St.   John   is   exceedingly   strong.      The   drawing 
is  excellent  in  every  way  and  the  colour  more  than 
merely  good.     But  for  all  that,  one  may  question 
the  attribution.     It  is  too  strong  for  Cano.     A 
similar  subject  in  the  Madrid  Gallery  (No.  629) 


166  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

is  infinitely  weaker  in  every  way.  When  and 
where,  in  what  picture,  did  Cano  ever  do  such 
good  work  as  this — such  colour  and  handling,  such 
drawing  and  such  a  fine,  broad  landscape?  Do- 
menico  Feti  did  angel  wings  like  those  in  this 
picture,  but  there  he  ends  as  a  possible  painter 
of  it. 

1.  Cima,  Giovanni  Battista.  St.  Catherine  of 
Alexandria.  A  very  beautiful  Cima,  fine  not 
only  in  the  figure  with  its  lofty  poise  and  dignified 
character,  but  superb  in  colour,  in  the  landscape, 
the  sky,  the  architecture.  The  robe  is  rather 
papery,  the  type  statuesque,  and  the  nose  and 
brows  a  little  hard;  but  all  told,  a  fine  picture. 
Notice  the  near  hill  with  its  towers  and  wall  and 
the  feeling  of  a  valley  between  it  and  the  distant 
mountains.  Notice  again  the  high,  clear  sky. 

114.  Claude  Lorraine.  Italian  Landscape.  Cool, 
with  a  blue  distance  that  hardly  belongs  to  the 
dark  foreground.  This  is  the  beginning  of  the 
landscape  convention  afterwards  adopted  some- 
how by  Ruisdael,  Everdingen,  and  Hobbema.  See 
the  Everdingen  and  Ruisdael  on  either  side  of  it. 

125.    Coast  Scene  with  Classic  Buildings.     A  hard 

little  picture,  but  it  has  vigour  and  life  about  it, 
with  wind  in  the  sky,  and  a  fretting  sea. 

92.    Coques,     Gonzales.      A     Family     Croup.     A 

fine  decorative  .picture  of  figures  in  landscape, 
evidently  portraits,  and  yet  kept  well  in  the  land- 
scape and  forming  a  part  of  it.  This  is  quite  re- 
markable if  the  conjecture  of  the  catalogue — 
that  Artois  did  the  landscape  and  Coques  the 
figures — is  true. 


DIETRICH  167 

532.  Gomeille  de  Lyon.  Portrait  of  a  French  Noble- 
man. This  painter  has  been  confused  with  his 
contemporaries,  the  Clouets,  and  is  only  recently 
developing  an  individuality.  A  picture  similar 
to  this  is  in  the  Louvre.  A  good  portrait,  now  a 
little  flattened  by  rubbing. 

527.  Crivelli,  Carlo.  St.  Roch.  The  drawing  here  is 
a  little  more  angular  than  usual,  but  the  colour  is 
very  fine  in  its  depth.  The  type  is  the  lean  and 
withered  kind  with  which  every  student  of  Crivelli 
is  familiar. 

49.    Cuyp,  Aelbert.     River  Scene  with  Shipping.     A 

hard  Cuyp — hard  in  the  waves,  masts,  sails,  and 
sky — but  with  some  rude  force  and  suggestion 
of  wind.  The  colour  is  good. 

138.  River  Scene  with  View  of  Dort.  As  an  ex- 
ample of  Cuyp,  it  is  fairly  good.  The  sky  has 
been  rubbed  too  much,  but  there  is  a  good 
effect  of  light.  The  ships  below  are  bulky  if  the 
houses  are  rather  thin.  No.  54  is  again  only  a 
fair  Cuyp. 

180.   Cattle.    Paul  Potter  has  been  and  still  is 

greatly  admired  for  his  cattle;  but  when  and 
where  did  he  do  anything  comparable  to  this 
picture  by  Cuyp?  And  these  are  not  the  best 
cattle  that  Cuyp  painted  by  any  means.  Look 
at  the  Potter  near  it  (No.  189). 

153.  Dietrich,  Christian  Wilhelm  Ernst.  The  Cir- 
cumcision. This  is  by  a  facile  imitator  of  Rem- 
brandt whose  works  should  be  borne  in  mind  when 
studying  the  smaller  pictures  in  the  European 
galleries  attributed  to  Rembrandt. 


168  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

177.  Dou,  Gerard.  Hermit  at  Prayer.  In  the  paint- 
er's smooth,  glassy  style  and  with  much  detail. 
The  model  is  the  same  and  the  drawing  of  the 
hands  the  same  as  in  the  Rembrandt  (attributed) 
in  the  Louvre  (No.  2541A) — A  Hermit  Reading. 

61.    Drost,  Cornells.     Portrait  of  a  Young  Woman. 

By  a  follower  and  pupil  of  Rembrandt  whose  works 
have  almost  disappeared  from  the  face  of  the 
earth.  What  has  become  of  them?  Have  they 
really  been  lost  or  destroyed,  or  have  they  been 
given  to  Rembrandt  and  others?  It  is  astonish- 
ing the  number  of  pictures  now  given  to  the  great 
and  how  few  are  given  to  the  humble.  An  excel- 
lent picture  in  colour,  if  a  little  smooth  in  its  sur- 
faces. Another  picture  of  the  same  model  is  in 
the  Louvre  (No.  2559A). 

94.  Dyck,  Anthony  van.  Portrait  of  Philippe  le 
Roy.  A  fine  portrait  in  Van  Dyck's  "second 
Flemish  manner,"  and  apparently  in  fair  con- 
dition. The  head  is  excellent  in  its  modelling 
with  well-drawn  eyes,  cheeks,  and  mouth.  The 
hands,  too,  are  forceful,  and  not  merely  aristo- 
cratic. The  pose  is  perhaps  a  little  too  magnif- 
icent, but  it  is  rather  attractive  than  otherwise. 
The  man  is  a  decided  personality  and  has  some 
force  about  him  other  than  that  indicated  in  the 
hands.  How  beautifully  the  dog  is  painted !  And 
notice  how  much  better  the  whites  are  here  than 
in  No.  79.  The  handling  all  through  is  superior 
to  that  of  the  companion  portrait.  The  flowers 
at  the  left  are  somewhat  rubbishy. 

79. Portrait   of   the    Wife    of   Philippe    le    Roy. 

The  companion  piece  to  No.  94  and  probably 
done  at  the  same  time,  but  it  is  a  weaker  per- 


DYCK,  ANTHONY  VAN  169 

formance.  It  savours  of  the  pretty  in  the  type, 
the  face,  the  hands,  the  smooth  surface.  It  is 
a  notable  picture,  nevertheless,  because  of  its 
size,  pose,  and  general  pretentiousness.  The 
white  feather  and  the  high  lights  on  the  hair 
appear  a  little  false  in  value,  as  though  some 
restorer  had  been  touching  them  up.  The  collar 
is  porcelain-like  and  the  whites  at  the  wrists 
want  in  quality.  The  difference  between  this 
picture  and  No.  94  is  so  marked  that  one  cannot 
help  thinking  that  Van  Dyck's  assistants  worked 
upon  it  and  prettified  it.  How  seldom  in  the 
history  and  criticism  of  art  do  we  hear  reference 
made  to  Van  Dyck's  assistants!  But  is  it  believ- 
able that  he  or  Rembrandt  did  all  the  works 
attributed  to  them  without  assistance?  Rubens, 
Bellini,  Raphael,  all  leaned  heavily  upon  their 
workshop.  Why  not  Van  Dyck  and  Rembrandt? 

85.    -    — Portrait  of  the  Artist  as  the  Shepherd  Paris. 

*  It  is  rather  fine  in  the  head.  The  figure  is  well 
modelled,  but  reminiscent  of  other  painters,  espe- 
cially in  the  arms  and  hands.  The  ball  of  the 
thumb  and  the  shoulder  suggest  the  influence  of 
Titian.  The  blue  gives  it  a  cold  tone. 

16.    Portrait    of   a    Flemish    Lady.     A    beautiful 

type,  but  prettified  in  the  painting.  The  head 
is  well  drawn  and  set  and  the  figure  is  convincing, 
but  the  surface  is  somewhat  too  smooth,  like 
most  of  the  Van  Dyck  portraits  of  the  second 
Flemish  period.  Look  at  the  ruff  and  cuffs  and 
the  red  chair  for  their  merely  pretty  painting. 

53.    Portrait  of  an  Italian  Nobleman.      A   slight 

type,  rather  effeminate  in  the  hands  and  face.  The 
painting  is  smooth  and  effeminate  to  correspond. 


170  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

Without  much  strength,  it  has  considerable 
elegance  and  style.  The  curtain  is  a  little  lively 
in  colour.  An  imposing  picture,  but  not  in  Van 
Dyck's  best  vein,  and  possibly  not  by  him  at 
all.  It  is  said  to  be  in  his  "Genoese  manner." 
So  too  are  the  Cattaneo  portraits  in  the  National 
Gallery.  But  what  widely  different  surfaces  they 
present! 

113.  Everdingen,  Allart  van.  Waterfall.  It  is  a 
shade  different  from  Ruisdael  or  Hobbema,  but 
all  three  painters  employed  the  same  landscape 
convention  and  worked  it  hard.  The  grey  sky, 
the  trees,  rocks,  water  are  all  here  in  place,  and 
sprucely  done.  But  with  what  result?  Look 
steadily  at  the  breaking  water  for  a  few  moments 
and  you  will  see  that  it  is  only  grey-white  paint. 
Look  at  the  clouds  and  you  will  see  the  same 
grey  paint  again.  All  the  picture  is  of  that 
quality  or  lack  of  quality. 

536.    Ferrarese    School.     The    Annunciation.    Two 

small  panels  rather  harsh  in  their  drawing  but 
now  very  decorative  in  colour.  The  architecture 
is  quite  as  rich  as  the  costumes. 

539.  Portrait  of  an  Italian  Gentleman.  A  hard 

profile,  with  some  force  of  characterisation  about 
it.  For  suggestions  regarding  the  possible  painter 
of  it,  see  the  note  in  the  catalogue.  It  has  dark- 
ened much  with  time. 

548.  Flemish  School  (Second  Half  of  the  15th 
Century).  The  Virgin  and  Child.  An  attrac- 
tive little  picture,  but  puzzling  to  place.  It  is 
not  very  well  done,  and  is  a  school  piece  of  some 
sort.  But  what  school?  Dr.  Friedlander  as- 
cribes it  to  the  Master  of  the  Magdalen  Legend. 


HALS,  FRANS  171 

78.    Flinck,   Covert.      Portrait  of  a    Young  Woman. 

*  A  good  example  of  Flinck  (as  we  at  present  under- 
stand him)  with  agreeable  colour.     The  nose  is 
misshapen  and  the  drawing  a  little  weak,   but 
there    is    a    certain    dexterity    in  handling  and 
cleverness    in    rendering    textures.     If    one    will 
carry  this  colour,  the  whites,  the  light,  and  the 
handling  over  to  the  so-called  Rembrandt  (No. 
86),  he  may  see  slight  (but  inconclusive)  resem- 
blances.    See  the  note  on  No.  86. 

556.  Florentine  School  (Late  15th  Century). 
Triumph  of  Venus.  It  is  perhaps  too  formal  in 
the  foreground  and  too  rounded  in  the  figures 
for  Piero  di  Cosimo,  to  whom  it  was  once  attrib- 
uted. A  somewhat  crude  work  by  an  inferior 
and  possibly  later  man  than  Piero.  It  is  not 
wanting  in  attractiveness  and  interest. 

)38.  Foppa,  Vicenzo.  Gian  Galeazzo  Sforza  Read- 
ing. In  Foppa's  style,  but  rather  lacking  his 
variety  of  detail  and  his  colour.  A  naive  boy 
seated  on  a  bench,  reading,  with  a  landscape  at  the 
back.  Somewhat  damaged,  but  still  an  inter- 
esting picture.  It  is  a  fresco. 

517.  Guardi,  Francesco.  Church  of  San  Giorgio 
*  Maggiore.  There  is  a  room  filled  with  Guardis 
and  Canalettos  for  one  to  admire  in  this  collec- 
tion. Of  the  Guardis,  Nos.  517  and  518  with  the 
two  small  oval  panels  Nos.  502  and  504  give  a 
good  idea  of  this  charming  painter.  At  his  best, 
he  is  quite  above  criticism  in  his  colour,  light,  and 
air. 

84.    Hals,    Frans.      The  Laughing  Cavalier.     A   por- 

*  trait  of  exact  drawing  and  careful  workmanship 


172  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

all  through.  In  fact,  the  work  is  so  exact  that 
it  causes  surprise.  Hals  was  usually  more  free 
and  often  more  careless  than  this.  Yet  at  this 
time  (if  we  accept  the  signature  as  correct),  Hals 
was  forty-four  years  old  and  had  just  done  the 
Officers  of  St.  George  and  St.  Adriaen  at  Haarlem 
(Nos.  124  and  125),  which  are  decidedly  in  a  dif- 
ferent vein.  The  head  and  shoulders  here  would 
not  fit  into  any  of  the  Haarlem  groups.  Could 
this  smooth  face  and  this  elaborated  linen  and 
embroidered  coat  have  been  done  by  Dirck  Hals 
or  any  one  of  the  Hals  School?  The  work  seems 
too  well  done  for  Dirck  or  any  other  Hals  pupil, 
and  is  too  literally  done  for  Frans  Hals  himself. 
And  except  for  the  face,  the  sharp  outline  of  that 
black  hat,  and  the  rim  of  the  figure,  it  does  not 
look  like  a  copy.  The  coat  is  too  freely  handled 
for  an  ordinary  copyist,  but  how  cramped  and 
hesitating  it  appears  when  you  think  of  it  as 
being  painted  by  Hals  at  the  height  of  his  power! 
The  idea  of  its  being  done  in  the  Hals  studio  and 
being  worked  upon  by  different  pupils  is  tenable, 
but  no  more.  It  is  an  excellent  picture,  but 
something  of  a  puzzle  as  to  its  origin.  The  same 
hand  that  did  this  probably  did  the  Van  Bere- 
steyn  portraits  in  the  Louvre  and  the  Man  with 
a  Sword  in  the  Lichtenstein  Gallery,  Vienna. 
What  a  fine  characterisation,  and,  as  opposed  to 
the  idea  of  a  copy,  how  lifelike  it  is !  What  good 
colour!  The  background  has  little  depth  and  the 
shadow  on  the  wall  is  disturbing,  perhaps  not 
exactly  true  in  value. 

110.  Heist,  Bartholomeus  van  der.  Family  Group. 
A  smooth  picture  with  somewhat  sweet  colours 
in  the  dresses.  Not  the  best  Van  der  Heist 


HOOCH,  PIETER  DE  173 

extant.  Like  many  another  Dutch  painter,  he 
adjusted  his  hat  to  the  golden  shower  and  painted 
pot-boilers  enough  and  to  spare.  There  is  too 
much  glitter  and  shine.  And  the  dead  hare  just 
here  seems  grotesque. 

95.    Hobbema,  Meindert.     Wooded  Landscape.     A 

conventional  Hobbema  with  painty  foliage  and 
a  merely  pretty  sky.  No.  99  is  of  the  same 
character,  with  perhaps  more  of  slate-grey  in  it. 
It  is  not  at  all  certain  that  Hobbema  was  respon- 
sible for  these  commonplace  landscapes. 

75. A  Stormy  Landscape.     A  Hobbema  of  some 

force,  but  in  his  slate-grey  key  of  colour  and  with 
his  mannered  trees  and  foliage.  It  has  more  or 
less  of  a  tapestry  look,  which  speaks  for  its  deco- 
rative value  but  not  for  its  sense  of  reality. 

23.    Hooch,  Pieter  de.     Interior  with  a  Woman  Peel- 

*  ing  Apples.      A    very  good  picture,   with   good 
painting  in  the  figures,  warm  light,  and  excep- 
tionally fine  colour.     The  window  and  the  light 
on  the  wall  are  quite  right  in  value.     Note  the 
child-like  quality  of  the  little  girl,  and  the  action 
of  holding  the  apple-peeling.     How  well  the  bas- 
ket is  held  in  the  lap,  and  what  a  good  basket 
of  apples  it  is! 

27.    Interior  with    Woman  and  Boy.     The  paint- 

*  ing  of  it  is  simpler  than  No.  23.     The  woman  is 
broadly  seen  and  painted  in  the  head  and  hands, 
the  black  coat,  and  the  red  skirt.    The  child  is 
just  as  simply,  just  as  truly,  done  in  the  face, 
hair,  and  clothing.     The  room  and  the  passage 
through  the  court-yard  are   beautiful  in  light — 
full,  broken,  and  shadowed  light,  all  three,  and 


174  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

all  of  them  quite  true.  What  beautiful  colour  the 
painter  has  got  out  of  the  windows;  what  drawing 
out  of  the  chair,  the  door,  the  floor  I 

541.  Italian  School,  North.  Portrait  of  a  Gentle- 
man. A  strong  portrait,  perhaps  by  reason  of 
its  forced  contrasts  of  black  and  white.  Rather 
pinched  in  the  drawing  of  the  face,  a  little  rigid 
in  the  hands,  tense  and  nervous,  but  very  honest 
and  sincere  work.  Mr.  Berenson  thinks  it  by 
Giulio  Campi.  No.  542,  put  down  to  the  North 
Italian  School,  is  less  interesting. 

120.    Jordaens,     Jakob.      Riches    of    Autumn.     A 

bouquet  of  wonderful  colours  and  a  decorative 
picture  of  much  strength  and  beauty.  Notice  the 
strong  blue  of  the  sky  supplemented  by  the  blue  of 
the  central  robe,  and  faintly  repeated  in  the  bunch- 
es of  grapes.  The  reds  are  repeated  in  the  same 
way.  The  flesh  notes  are  superb  and  the  draw- 
ing truthful  as  well  as  graceful.  Look  at  the 
figure  lying  down,  the  children's  heads  just 
above,  the  splendid  figure  in  red,  and  the  superb 
satyr  at  the  right.  What  drawing  in  the  crouch- 
ing woman  and  the  figure  under  the  fruit!  And 
what  wonderful  light  and  shade!  Of  its  kind  it 
is  quite  perfect.  It  is  a  variation  of  the  allegoi 
of  Fecundity  (No.  235)  in  the  Brussels  Gallery, 
differing  in  the  central  figure  with  the  blue  robe. 

8.    Luini,    Bernardino.     Virgin    and    Child.     An 

early  work  of  Luini's  with  not  much  depth  of 
colour  or  shadow,  and  some  uneasiness  in  the 
draperies.  The  mood  is  sweet  as  with  almost  all 
of  Luini's  pictures. 

10.    Virgin   and   Child.     Given   with   the   Luii 

type  and  sentiment,  smooth  surfaces,  and  pl( 


MAZO,  JUAN  DEL  175 

ant  colour.  Graceful,  but  not  forceful.  Luini 
never  is  forceful,  and  for  that  reason,  perhaps, 
never  rises  to  anything  like  greatness. 

537.  -  —  Head  of  a  Girl.  The  profile  of  the  head  is 
graceful  and  the  colour  decorative.  It  belongs 
perhaps  to  the  Luini  School.  The  suggestion 
of  foliage  at  the  left  is  somewhat  crudely  given. 
A  fresco  transferred  to  canvas.  See  also  the 
foliage  in  No.  526. 

201  Maes,  Nicolas.  Boys  with  Hawks.  These  por- 
96  /  traits,  as  also  the  genre  piece  (No.  239),  seem  to  be 
in  the  smoother  style  of  Maes,  done  when  he 
was  departing  from  the  Rembrandt  tradition  to 
do  popular  rather  than  artistic  work;  but  in 
reality  they  may  be  performances  by  some  one 
to  us  quite  unknown.  They  are  attractive. 
[Since  this  note  was  written  the  pictures  have 
been  declared  to  be  by  Johannes  van  Noordt.] 

224.    The  Listening  Housewife.     This  picture  and 

No.  239  are  suggestive  of  Pieter  de  Hooch  in  their 
themes,  but  they  are  much  duller  in  light,  less 
brilliant  in  colour,  and  more  glassy  in  surfaces  and 
textures.  Similar  subjects  by  Maes  are  in  several 
of  the  European  galleries. 

4.  Mazo,  Juan  Bautista  del.  Don  Balthasar 
Carlos.  The  light  of  this  picture  is  dull  and  the 
table  at  the  back  pushes  the  figure  out  of  the 
frame  quite  as  much  as  the  dark  ground;  but  it 
is  not  a  bad  presentation  of  a  model  that  Velasquez 
painted  several  times.  His  view  of  the  Infante 
was  perhaps  more  sturdy  and  positive  than 
Maze's.  The  latter  has  rather  weakened  the 
face  by  making  it  girlish.  A  good  picture,  how- 


176  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

ever.  Mazo  is  not  to  be  despised  in  the  name  of 
Velasquez.  He  was  a  very  good  painter.  See 
the  portrait  No.  6  under  Velasquez.  [Now  (1913) 
catalogued  "after  Velasquez."] 

240.     MetSU,   Gabriel.      The  Letter   Writer  Surprised. 

A  fairly  good  Metsu.  The  colour  and  handling 
are  in  his  style,  but  the  drawing  is  a  little 
rambling.  Note  the  flat  white  of  the  woman's 
cap  and  her  poorly  drawn  hands. 

242.  -  —  Old  Woman  Asleep.  It  is  better  than  No. 
240 — much  better.  It  is  simpler,  broader,  truer 
in  drawing  and  handling,  finer  in  colour  and  light. 
Note  the  excellent  still-life. 

66.  Mierevelt,  Michiel  Jansz.  Portrait  of  a  Dutch 
Lady.  A  handsome  girlish  type  with  a  rich  dress 
and  a  ruff  most  astounding  in  its  thickness,  its 
many  layers  of  linen.  An  attractive  picture,  and, 
as  the  catalogue  says,  with  much  of  "  the  ingenious 
charm"  of  Paulus  Moreelse. 

97.  Murillo,  BartolomS  EstSban.  The  Charity  of 
St.  Thomas  of  Villanueva.  A  much  better  pic- 
ture, though  sooty  and  blackish,  than  one  gen- 
erally finds  under  Murillo's  name.  There  is  an 
attempt  at  good  drawing  and  a  welcome  absence 
of  sweet  colour  and  cloying  sentiment.  The 
woman  and  child  at  right  and  the  half-nude  beg- 
gar at  the  left  are  well  done. 

13.   Virgin  and  Child.     It  has  a  smooth  surface, 

and  colour  with  some  richness  and  depth  to  it. 
The  sentiment  is  a  little  weak,  but  not  mawkish, 
as  often  happens  with  Murillo's  Madonnas.     See 
also  Nos.  136  and  133. 

14.    Marriage   of  the    Virgin.     The   colour,   espe- 
cially the  blue,  is  a  little  acrid,  but  the  picture  is 


NETSCHER  177 

painted  with  some  enthusiasm.  It  is  not  bad 
in  either  drawing  or  grouping  and  yet  fails  to 
make  a  good  united  impression.  Possibly  that 
is  due  to  the  falsity  of  the  lighting. 

34.    Adoration  of  the  Shepherds.      A  picture  with 

good  air,  good  atmospheric  setting,  good  group- 
ing, and  good  drawing.  The  Madonna  is  a  little 
pretty,  but  not  insipid.  The  colour  is  satisfactory, 
though  Murillo  never  had  the  sense  of  a  colourist 
at  any  time.  His  light  and  shade  here  is  good, 
but  shadow  is  another  pictorial  feature  for  which 
he  never  had  any  fine  feeling. 

46.    Joseph    and    His    Brethren.     A    companion 

piece  to  No.  34,  though  in  a  higher  key  of 
light.  It  is  a  very  good  Murillo  with  some  "go" 
about  it.  It  belongs  to  his  best  period.  Note 
the  suggestion  of  desert  landscape  with  the  really 
strong  sky.  The  right  hand  of  Joseph  is  of  the 
theatrical  type;  but,  generally  speaking,  the  pic- 
ture is  a  very  good  one  for  Murillo. 

68.   The  Annunciation.     A  cloying  picture  with 

frail  drawing  and  types;  but  good  enough  in 
colour,  and  with  some  free  painting  in  the  draperies 
of  the  Madonna  and  angel.  It  is  overdone  in 
sentiment,  however. 

217.  Neer,  Aart  van  der.  Skating  Scene.  A  fine 
sky,  very  truthfully  reflected  in  the  clear  ice. 
With  good  small  figures  that  keep  their  place 
and  are  true  in  value. 

237.    Netscher,  Caspar.     The  Lace  Maker.     A  beau- 

*      tiful  picture — so  beautiful  and  so  much  better 

than    Netscher    usually    painted    that    it    might 

almost   be  questioned  if  a  stronger   hand  than 


178  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

his  did  not  do  it.  The  colour  and  simplicity 
of  it  are  excellent.  Note  the  beauty  of  the  red 
sleeve,  the  head  and  head-dress,  the  hands.  And 
how  very  well  it  is  painted !  Netscher  never  went 
beyond  it  and  very  seldom  reached  up  to  it. 

202.  Ostade,  Adraien  van.  Buying  Fish.  What 
*  large  drawing  of  the  essentials  with  the  petty  1 
little  details  (the  accidentals)  left  out!  Look  at 
the  head  of  the  boy  in  the  red  cap,  or  the  hands  of 
the  fish-seller,  or  the  fish,  for  truth  to  large  facts 
given  easily  and  yet  completely  and  fully. 

17.  Ostade,  Isack  van.  A  Market  Place.  A  very 
good  example  of  this  painter,  whose  exaggerated 
and  painty  high  lights  have  caused  a  number  of 
his  pictures  in  European  galleries  to  be  catalogued 
under  the  name  of  Paul  Potter,  as,  for  instance, 
No.  357  at  the  Brussels  Museum.  A  companion 
piece  in  this  Wallace  Collection  (No.  21),  is  of 
the  same  quality  as  this  No.  17,  though  warmer 
in  colour,  with  the  spotty  high  lights  not  strongly 
in  evidence. 

189.    Potter,  Paulus.      Herdsmen   with   Their   Cattle. 

Contrast  it  with  the  Cuyp,  No.  180,  near  at  hand, 
and  see  how  much  cruder  in  every  way  is  the 
Potter.  He  never  had  Cuyp's  knowledge  or 
skill,  but  he  somehow,  through  his  early  death 
and  that  huge  canvas  of  the  Young  Bull  at  The 
Hague,  got  a  greater  reputation. 

219.  The  Milkmaid.  It  is  too  good  to  be  a  gen- 
uine Potter,  especially  in  the  drawing  and  the  paint- 
ing of  the  milkmaid.  But  the  cow  and  the  tree 
at  left  are  like  Potter's  work.  Compare  the  fig- 
ure and  its  painting  with  the  figures  in  the 


REMBRANDT  179 

Potter  No.  189,  as  also  the  cattle  and  the  high 
lights  on  the  leaves.  They  are  very  different 
stories  of  the  brush.  No.  189  is  genuine  enough, 
perhaps. 

26.    PourbllS,  FratlS.      Portrait  of  a  Gentleman.      A 

fine  Antonio-Moro-looking  portrait  with  some 
vigour  of  pose  and  a  decent  quality  of  blacks,  but 
also  with  excessive  smoothness  of  drawing  and 
softness  of  modelling. 

531.    Pourbus,     Pieter.     Allegorical   Love    Feast.     A 

*  fine  group  arranged  in  the  form  of  a  half-arch, 
well  drawn  and  with  much  excellence  of  colour. 
The  costumes  are  rich,  the  types  individual,  the 
still-life  well  done.     With   a  landscape  showing 
distant  mountains  and  the  sea.     A  Pourbus  with- 
out a  precedent.     There  is  nothing  like  it  else- 
where.    At  the  right,  in  the  landscape  at  the 
back,  there  is  a  hint  of  the  Brueghels,  but  it  is 
very  slight. 

82.    Rembrandt  van  Ryn.    Portrait  of  Jan  Pelli- 

*  come  and  Son.     An  early  Rembrandt  of  1633, 
but  with  little  indication  of  his  "grey  period" 
about   it.     The   faces   are   carefully   and   surely 
drawn,    with    no    great   freedom    of   the    brush, 
though  the  surfaces  have  probably  been  changed 
by  cleaning.     The  eyes  of  the  man  are  Rem- 
brandt's, and  also  the  head  of  the  boy,  but  the 
boy's  dress  with  its  sleeve  and  little  shoe-string 
pendants  are  possibly  by  some  pupil  or  follower. 
It  is  a  curious  Rembrandt,  with  much  about  the 
costume,  lighting,  and  background  that  give  no 
hint  of  Rembrandt  at  all,  and  yet,  if  one  calls 
to  mind  the  early  Lesson  in  Anatomy  at  The 
Hague,  this  portrait  will  be  found  very  like  it. 


180  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

The  man's  head  might  even  fit  into  the  Anatomy 
picture  without  much  discord.  Notice  the  depth 
of  the  setting,  the  air,  and  the  shadows  here. 
Notice  also  the  absence  of  any  small  or  spotty 
lights. 

90.    Portrait  of  Suzanna  van  Gotten,  Wife  of  Jan 

*  Pellicorne,  with  Her  Daughter.     This  is  the  com- 
panion piece  to  No.  82  and  is  just  as  curious  in 
its  workmanship   as   is   that   portrait.     Possibly 
the  colour  and  expression  of  the  faces  have  been 
changed  by  some  cleaning  and  retouching.     The 
face  of  the  woman  now  looks  a  little  too  pretty 
for   Rembrandt.     Yet   the   ruff   and   hands  are 
his  and  also   the  child's  head.     In  the  child's 
dress  there  is  the  appearance  of  another  brush  at 
work — a  smoother,  prettier,  weaker  brush.     Of 
the  same  date  as  No.  82,  with  nothing  "grey"  in 
the  tone  of  it.     They  are  peculiar  Rembrandts 
because   they   do   not   tally   closely   with   other 
works  of  his  at  that  period.     Yet  here  is  a  head 
that  quite  agrees  with  the  Van  Beresteyn  por- 
traits by  Rembrandt  in  the  Havermeyer  Collec- 
tion, New  York. 

86.    The    Centurion    Cornelius.       A    fine    picture 

*  in  colour  as  in  lighting,  with  a  good  deal  of  char- 
acter and  dignity  about  it.     It  is  put  down  to 
Rembrandt  when  he  was  about  fifty,  but  there 
are  reasons  for  thinking  he  did  not  do  it  at  any 
age.     It  is  his  lighting  in  a  superficial  way,  but 
apparently  not  his  types,  not  his  characters,  not 
his  drawing,  colouring,  or  handling.     The  faces 
lack    his    emotional    or    forceful    quality.     The 
types  are  those  of  Flinck  and  Fabritius.     The 
third  figure  at  the  back  is  the  model  that  has 


REMBRANDT  181 

appeared  in  more  than  one  of  BoFs  pictures,  and 
has  passed  as  Rembrandt's  brother  in  pictures 
at  The  Hague  and  elsewhere.  The  Centurion 
with  the  turban  is  probably  the  same  model  as 
the  Saul  in  No.  621,  Saul  and  David  in  The 
Hague  Museum,  put  down  to  Rembrandt,  but 
possibly  by  Flinck.  The  same  model  appears 
again  in  the  Christ  Before  Pilate,  Budapest 
Gallery  (No.  368).  The  turban  should  be  no- 
ticed for  its  smooth  quality  and  its  colours,  which 
resemble  Rembrandt's  very  little.  The  outer 
dress  and  the  sleeve  should  again  be  noticed  for 
that  same  smooth,  slippery  rendering  of  tex- 
tures so  foreign  to  Rembrandt.  Again  the  sharp 
way  in  which  the  high  lights  are  ridged  on  the 
helmet,  the  noses,  the  foreheads,  and  lips,  does 
not  point  to  Rembrandt.  The  drawing  of  the 
wrists  and  fingers  and  knuckles  have  a  certain 
square  and  wooden  quality  once  more  foreign  to 
him.  And  finally,  in  a  general  way,  the  thin  or 
sweet  quality  of  the  colour  should  be  noticed,  the 
absence  of  light  aside  from  that  reflected  from 
the  figures,  the  blackish  quality  of  the  ground, 
and  the  apparent  envelope  of  air  which  is  all  on 
this  side  of  the  figures  and  not  in  the  background. 
The  picture  comes  nearer  to  a  masterpiece  by 
Flinck  or  Bernaert  Fabritius  than  a  work  by 
Rembrandt.  One's  general  impression  is  that  it 
is  like  Fabritius  at  Darmstadt  but  in  specific 
resemblances  it  recalls  Flinck.  In  the  confusion 
resulting  from  the  indiscriminate  assignment  of 
all  the  dark-looking  Dutch  pictures  to  Rembrandt, 
which  took  place  many  years  ago,  and  is  still  in 
progress,  the  Rembrandt  pupils  have  been  as 
badly  mixed  up  as  the  master.  Flinck,  Eeck- 


182  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

hout,  Bol,  Fabritius  are  all  confused  and  con- 
founded. See  the  note  on  the  Saul  and  David, 
No.  621,  in  The  Hague  Gallery,  and  also  on  the 
Lesson  in  Anatomy  there.  The  notes  on  the 
Rembrandts  in  the  National  Gallery,  the  Berlin 
Gallery,  and  the  Hermitage  should  be  consulted. 

29.    Portrait  of  the  Artist's  Son,  Titus.     This  is 

*  an  undeniably  fine  work,  a  portrait  of  some  force, 
both  in  its  sad  conception  and  its  vigorous  paint- 
ing. The  eyes,  nose,  and  mouth  are  Rembrandt- 
esque,  as  is  also  the  shadow,  but  not  the  flat 
figure  with  the  hard  edge.  One  wonders  about 
the  small  high  lights  on  the  hair,  the  shadows  of 
the  coat,  the  chain;  about  the  red  cap  and  its 
outline;  about  the  background.  The  handling, 
if  Rembrandt 's,  is  not  so  late  as  1657.  Rem- 
brandts of  that  date  contradict  the  handling  of 
this  picture.  It  is  possible  that  in  a  burst  of  in- 
spiration Eeckhout  did  the  work,  rather  than 
Rembrandt  himself.  It  has  something  of  Eeck- 
hout about  the  type,  the  hair,  the  coat,  and  the 
shadow  across  it;  but  it  is  difficult  to  account  for 
his  doing  anything  so  really  fine  as  this  portrait. 
Yet  it  is  almost  certainly  not  by  Rembrandt. 
As  for  its  being  Rembrandt's  son  Titus,  that  is 
only  conjecture,  and  the  date  of  1657  was  no 
doubt  made  to  fit  the  conjecture.  A  picture  put 
down  to  Rembrandt's  School  in  the  Dulwich  Gal- 
lery gives  the  same  type  of  face,  only  a  little 
older. 

52.    Portrait   of   the  Artist.     The   sitter  is   in   a 

velvet  cap  and  a  fur  cloak,  with  a  somewhat  pasty 
face,  a  piercing  eye,  and  a  slightly  parted  mouth. 
Said  to  have  been  done  about  1634,  but  there  is 


REMBRANDT  183 

considerable  doubt  about  Rembrandt's  having  done 
it.  The  grey  of  the  ground  and  the  shadow  on 
the  right  are  lacking  in  quality.  The  grey  is  flat 
and  not  of  Rembrandt  depth  or  luminosity.  The 
face  is  soft  in  line,  a  little  flaccid  in  modelling,  not 
strong  or  emphatic  in  touch,  and  not  given  with 
Rembrandt's  flesh  colour.  It  is  pallid  and  grey. 
The  outlines  of  the  cap  and  cloak  are  hard  and 
there  seems  little  or  no  inset  to  the  figure,  no 
atmospheric  depth.  Now  these  are  all  peculi- 
arities of  Jan  Lievens  that  almost  any  one  should 
be  able  to  recognise,  but  to  cap  their  evidence 
the  hair  is  plowed  and  scratched  with  the  wooden 
end  of  the  brush — a  mannerism  that  shows  in 
almost  every  portrait  that  Lievens  painted.  On 
wood  and  once  framed  with  an  arch-and-column 
effect  at  the  top.  See  the  note  on  No.  55. 

55.   Portrait  of  the  Artist.     This  portrait  is  said 

to  be  the  likeness  of  the  painter  and  to  have  been 
painted  in  1635 — one  year  later  than  No.  52; 
but  what  a  change  in  the  man  in  one  year's  time! 
Compare  the  two  portraits  for  the  likeness  of  the 
sitter.  Did  Rembrandt  do  them  both?  Did  he 
see  himself  so  differently  and  change  his  method 
of  painting  so  radically  in  the  same  year,  in  the 
same  mirror?  Did  he  paint  the  twenty  or  more 
portraits  of  himself  in  the  European  galleries, 
all  of  them  so  different  the  one  from  the  other, 
or  did  his  twenty  or  more  pupils  do  them?  One 
can  understand  the  variations  of  likeness  in  the 
different  pupils  better  than  the  variation  in  Rem- 
brandt or  his  mirror.  And  was  it,  after  all,  Rem- 
brandt who  sat  or  only  some  model?  This  por- 
trait is  not  well  drawn  in  the  eyes,  the  nose,  the 
cheeks,  the  mouth;  and  the  hat,  beard,  mous- 


184  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

tache,  hair  are  not  too  well  painted.  It  is  a 
school  piece. 

201.  Portrait  of  a  Boy.  It  is  too  pretty  for  Rem- 
brandt— pretty  not  only  in  the  face,  but  in  the 
cap,  the  pearls,  the  spots  of  light  on  the  cloak. 
Compare  it  with  the  face  in  the  Amsterdam  Gal- 
lery picture  (No.  1634),  there  put  down  to  Moe- 
yaert  and  formerly  attributed  to  Hoogstraaten. 
The  same  hand  did  this  Wallace  Collection  por- 
trait and  also  the  portrait  (No.  843)  at  the  Her- 
mitage, there  ascribed  to  Rembrandt. 

203.  The  Good  Samaritan.  A  very  good  little 

picture  that  any  one  of  half  a  dozen  Rembrandt 
followers  might  have  painted.  It  is  perhaps  good 
enough  for  Rembrandt,  but  he  was  not  accus- 
tomed to  doing  this  small  art,  whereas,  with  quite 
a  number  of  his  pupils,  it  was  a  genre  of  their  own. 
The  same  hand  that  did  this  picture  did  also  the 
Diana  Bathing  in  the  National  Gallery  (No. 
2538). 

173.  Portrait  of  the  Artist.  It  is  a  fairly  good 

copy,  or  possibly  a  variant  of  a  questionable 
Rembrandt  at  the  Vienna  Gallery,  but  not  a 
picture  of  importance,  whoever  did  it.  It  is  on 
copper,  which  was  not  often  used  until  after  Rem- 
brandt's time. 

229.  Ideal  Landscape.  This  coincides  with  what 

people  have  supposed  were  Rembrandt's  land- 
scapes, but  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  dread- 
ful little  figure  at  the  right  with  its  bad  painting, 
or  the  dogs  back  of  it,  or  the  sheaves  below  it? 
In  the  sky  is  the  thunder  cloud  that  belongs  to 
Hercules  Seghers.  The  middle  distance  has  a 
forced  lighting  that  is  strong.  Perhaps  Rem- 


ROSA,  SALVATORE  185 

brandt  did  it.  But  if  so,  why  didn't  he  draw  it 
better — he  who  was  such  a  master  of  naturalistic 
drawing?  The  same  hand  did  the  small  land- 
scape in  the  Amsterdam  Gallery  (No.  2020), 
assigned  to  Rembrandt. 

238.  -  —  Young  Negro  Archer.  It  is  possible  that  the 
unusual  subject  of  a  black  man  caused  Rem- 
brandt to  paint  thinly  though  one  might  have 
supposed  that  black  flesh  would  have  bothered 
him  and  caused  some  mealiness  and  emendation 
of  the  surface.  But  here  is  a  face  quite  smooth 
save  for  a  dab  of  light  on  the  nose  and  another 
on  the  lip.  The  loading  of  paint  on  the  strap, 
the  quiver,  and  bow  look  very  like  Rembrandt, 
but  other  painters  aped  this  work  quite  closely, 
as  also  the  grey  ground.  The  figure  is  slightly 
indicated.  And  the  sleeves — were  they,  too,  af- 
fected by  the  black  face  and  done  with  timorous 
smoothness?  And  when  did  Rembrandt  begin 
doing  that  thin,  transparent  white  at  the  throat, 
or  dab  his  sleeves  with  white  paint,  or  fumble 
his  pearls  in  their  high  lights?  Notice  also 
the  thinness  of  the  painting  in  the  shadows  of 
the  sleeve  and  the  blackness  or  brownness  of  the 
shadow  where  it  falls  across  the  white  collar  and 
on  the  shoulder.  The  picture  was  probably 
painted  by  the  same  hand  that  did  No.  825  at 
Berlin — not  Rembrandt,  but  Hendrick  Heer- 
schop.  [Since  this  note  was  written,  but  before 
its  publication,  the  new  catalogue  of  the  Wallace 
Collection  has  been  issued.  It  suggests  Heer- 
schop  as  the  possible  painter  of  this  picture.] 

116.    Rosa,  Salvatore.     River  Scene  with  Apollo  and 
*       the  Sibyl.     A  fine  classical  landscape  of  much 


186  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

dignity.  The  tree  branches  formal  and  the  sky 
a  little  hard;  but  there  is  good  distance  and  good 
colour.  A  decorative  canvas  of  much  beauty  and 
truth.  Claude  never  even  approached  such  a 
view  as  this,  and  Poussin  ignored  it  for  a  more 
academic  formula. 

81.  Rubens,  Peter  Paul.  The  Holy  Family  with 
*  Elizabeth  and  St.  John.  It  is  hung  too  high 
to  be  seen  well,  but  it  looks  a  Rubens,  save 
for  the  faces  and  types  of  the  women.  These 
are  not  typically  Rubens.  Note  the  beautiful 
luminous  flesh  colour  of  the  children,  with  its  red 
shadows.  This  is  something  that  certain  fol- 
lowers like  Seghers  exaggerated.  See  his  Holy 
Family  in  the  Vienna  Gallery  (No.  878A)  put 
down  to  the  School  of  Rubens. 

93.    Christ's  Charge  to  Peter.     So  far  as  it  can 

be  seen  in  its  present  hanging,  it  looks  like  a 
Rubens,  in  good  condition,  done  carefully  and 
cleanly,  with  no  great  display  of  colour,  but  with  a 
rather  smooth  and  slippery  brush.  Not  an  in- 
spired performance  nor  possessed  of  great  force. 
The  type  of  Christ  is  not  one  peculiar  to  Rubens. 
It  may  be  a  school  piece  as  the  exaggerated  hands 
suggest. 

30.    Portrait  of  Isabella  Brandt.     It  might  prove 

on  close  inspection  to  be  only  a  copy  (not  a 
"repetition")  of  the  portrait  at  The  Hague  (No. 
250).  It  is  a  little  smooth  for  Rubens,  though 
we  are  not  to  forget  his  portraits,  like  the  Anne 
of  Austria,  that  are  almost  frail  in  their  porce- 
lain-like surfaces.  The  hair,  cheeks,  and  eyes 
here  look  suspicious  and  the  ruffs  at  the  wrist 


RUBENS  187 

are  curious.  No  doubt  the  picture  has  been 
much  rubbed  and  scrubbed. 

71.    The  Crucified  Saviour.     This  follows  closely 

the  larger  picture  of  the  same  subject  (No.  313) 
in  the  Antwerp  Gallery,  but  lacks  the  verve  of 
the  latter,  though  supposed  to  be  a  sketch.  The 
handling  is  smooth  and  (in  the  white  cloth)  not 
very  spirited  or  certain.  The  flesh  is  blackish, 
the  arms  a  bit  stringy,  and  the  drawing  of  the 
left  side  below  the  shoulder  somewhat  ques- 
tionable in  spite  of  the  strain  of  the  muscling. 
The  flesh  shadows  are  brownish  red,  the  sky  very 
dark.  It  is  possibly  an  old  school  copy. 

63.    The  Rainbow  Landscape.     In  its  total  effect, 

this  landscape  is  impressive,  but  it  does  not  stand 
analysis  of  the  parts  very  well.  It  is  a  common 
belief  that  Rubens  was  a  famous  draughtsman,  a 
perfect  craftsman, — a  man  who  could  do  things 
in  a  believable  way  at  least.  Therefore  one  won- 
ders with  some  misgivings  if  he  committed  all 
the  small  atrocities  of  bad  drawing  apparent  in 
this  picture.  The  most  obvious  pieces  of  defec- 
tive drawing  are  shown  in  the  cattle.  Did  Rubens 
do  those  heads  and  horns  and  bodies  and  legs, 
with  those  high  lights  following  the  backbone  or 
plastered  on  the  nose  or  between  the  eyes,  and 
those  dreadful  reflections  in  the  water?  Did  he 
do  those  crazy  ducks,  or  the  queer  horses,  or  the 
peasants  with  their  dislocated  heads,  bodies,  and 
hands?  Did  he  paint  that  solid  wooden  field  of 
grain,  those  unbelievable  grain  stacks,  that  impos- 
sible water,  those  trees  with  their  mannered 
foliage,  arbitrary  lighting,  and  black  shadows, 
that  smoky  sky  and  that  hard,  lightless  rainbow? 


188  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

The  shadows  at  the  right  are  too  dark  for  the 
light  at  the  left.  This  throws  the  picture  out  of 
tone.  Again  the  high  lights  on  the  trees  are 
false  as  compared  with  the  shadows  of  the  same 
trees,  but  this  is  the  very  thing  that  gives  the 
picture  a  certain  snap  and  makes  it  deceptive. 
It  is  by  the  painter  of  the  Chateau  de  Steen 
landscape  (No.  66)  in  the  National  Gallery  (see 
the  note  upon  it).  The  same  Rubens  follower 
did  the  landscape  at  Brussels  (No.  391)  and  the 
landscape  (No.  654)  in  the  Vienna  Academy. 
The  true  Rubens  landscape  is  at  the  Vienna  Im- 
perial Gallery  (No.  869)  and  perhaps  in  the  Na- 
tional Gallery,  London  (No.  2924),  and  the  true 
Rubens  doing  of  horses,  landscape,  and  accessory 
objects  is  at  Antwerp  (No.  781).  Yet,  to  tell  the 
truth,  with  all  its  faults,  this  landscape  in  the  Wal- 
lace Collection  is  far  from  being  a  bad  landscape. 
It  is  impressive  in  its  distance  and  colour.  But  Ru- 
bens never  touched  brush  to  it.  He  was  one  of  the 
most  perfect  of  craftsmen.  Neither  his  hand  nor 
his  eyes  are  seen  here. 

50.    Ruisdael,  Jacob  van.     Rocky  Landscape.    The 

usual  Ruisdael  with  the  white  birch,  the  foaming 
water,  the  mannered  trees,  and  the  slate-coloured 
sky. 

56.    Landscape  with  Water  Fall.     This   time   the 

*  painter's  convention  is  varied,  in  the  sky,  the 
hut,  the  distance,  and  with  very  good  results. 
Quite  a  noble  landscape. 

247.    Sunset   in   a    Wood.     An   unusual   effect   of 

sunlight — or  is  it  moonlight? — for  Ruisdael.  Of 
course  it  is  much  too  low  in  key  of  light  and  colour. 
Nature  is  no  such  drab  affair  as  this.  All  the 


STEEN,  JAN  189 

Dutch  landscapes  were  pitched  too  low  in  the 
key  of  light. 

9.  Sarto,  Andrea  del.  Madonna  and  Child  with 
*  St.  John  and  Two  Angels.  A  smooth,  much 
rubbed  Andrea,  with  fine  types  and  excellent 
drawing.  No  religious  sentiment,  but  there  is 
a  nice  feeling  about  colour  and  the  mystery  of 
shadows  deepening  it  and  darkening  it.  The 
Madonna  is  a  rather  lofty  type — a  version  of  his 
Lucretia.  Her  hand  is  injured  and  the  whole 
picture  has  been  too  much  cleaned. 

111.  Steen,  Jan.  The  Christening  Feast.  Perhaps 
originally  a  very  good  picture,  but  now  rubbed 
so  much  that  the  canvas  shows  disagreeably. 
Notice  this  in  the  figure  in  grey  at  the  left.  The 
picture  is  also  somewhat  repainted  in  the  hands 
and  faces.  The  red  cloak  on  the  child  is  now 
false  in  value  from  repainting,  and  the  child  it- 
self is  only  a  manikin.  And  notice  the  hand  upon 
the  red  cloth.  The  still-life  on  the  floor  is  good. 
The  picture  is  well  painted  in  spots — the  woman 
with  her  back  to  us,  for  instance. 

150.  The  Lute  Player.  There  is  some  free  paint- 
ing in  the  costume  of  the  figure  at  the  right  and 
some  good  drawing  in  the  other  figures.  But  it 
is  not  a  remarkable  picture. 

154.    The  Harpsichord  Lesson.    Painted  with  much 

directness,  simplicity,  and  truth.  Look  at  the 
charming  head  and  beautifully  painted  hair  of 
the  young  lady  at  the  harpsichord.  Note  also  the 
dress  of  both  characters  for  easy  handling.  It 
is  much  better  than  the  larger,  many-figured  piece, 
No.  158. 


190  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

209.    Village  Alchemist.     The  chief  figure  is  beau- 
tifully drawn  and  painted.     It  is  not  such  broad 
and  free  work  as  Brouwer's,  but  it  is  very  effec- 
tive. 

210.  Teniers  the  Younger,  David.     Deliverance  of 
St.  Peter.    The  title  is  taken  from  the  figures 
at  the  back.     A  bright  piece  of  colour  with  clever 
painting. 

231.    Gambling    Scene   at   an   Inn.     A  handsome 

Teniers,  with  much  brilliant  colour  in  the  cen- 
tralised red  coat,  and  some  very  dexterous  manip- 
ulation of  the  brush.  Note  the  bulk  of  the 
figure  at  the  extreme  left. 

227.   Boors  Carousing.     All  the  Teniers  pictures 

here  seem  of  excellent  quality.  The  connoisseur 
who  brought  them  together  in  this  collection 
evidently  knew  the  meaning  of  good  painting — 
that  is,  painting  from  the  painter's  point  of  view. 
These  pictures  show  strongly  the  influence  of 
Brouwer. 

236.    Terborch,   Gerard.      Lady   Reading    a    Letter. 

*  A  much  stronger  and  better  picture  than  No. 
235  in  this  collection.  It  is  beautifully  done, 
especially  in  the  head  and  face,  with  the  shadow 
of  the  curling  hair  thrown  across  the  face.  Study 
the  face  a  moment  for  the  expression  of  it — the 
interest  in  the  letter.  The  costume  and  table- 
cloth are  effective  as  colour.  And  what  good 
drawing  in  the  screen,  the  table,  the  chair! 
A  strange  background  above  the  screen — prob- 
ably the  top  of  a  bed  canopy  showing — with  a 
good  many  things  about  it  that  do  not  suggest 
Terborch. 


VELASQUEZ  191 

11.  Titian  (Tiziano  Vecellio).  Perseus  and  An- 
dromeda.  The  figure  of  Andromeda  looks  re- 
painted, though  it  may  be  merely  overcleaned. 
The  figure  is  slight,  rather  attenuated,  somewhat 
affected  in  the  arms  and  left  leg,  with  none  of 
that  large,  voluptuous  quality  that  Titian  usually 
gave  in  his  nudes.  The  action  of  the  Perseus  is 
awkward.  The  sea  is  good  and  the  dragon  mon- 
strous enough.  For  all  the  tradition  and  doc- 
umentation about  it,  it  is  still  unbelievable  as  a 
Titian. 

88.  Velasquez,  Diego  de  Silva  y.  Portrait  of  a 
*  Spanish  Lady.  A  portrait  of  much  truth,  charm, 
and  beauty.  It  is  quite  true  in  drawing,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  the  right  arm,  and  is  just 
as  accurate  in  the  handling.  The  head  is  the 
best  part  of  it.  It  is  not  a  late  work  by  Velas- 
quez. Some  there  are  who  think  it  not  by  Velas- 
quez at  all.  There  is  nothing  at  Madrid  or  else- 
where that  absolutely  confirms  it,  but  it  is  a  fine 
portrait  for  all  that.  It  seems  too  fine,  too  sen- 
sitive, too  psychological  for  Velasquez.  He  was 
not  a  subtle  prober  into  the  mental  attitudes  of 
his  sitters  so  much  as  a  truthful  painter  of  their 
external  appearances. 

100.    Infante  Margarita  Maria.     It  is  a  fairly  good 

portrait,  but  if  placed  beside  the  little  Infanta 
in  the  Salon  Carre  of  the  Louvre,  or  near  the  two 
children's  portraits  at  Vienna,  it  will  demonstrate 
its  own  weakness  in  short  order.  Look  at  the 
handling  of  the  hair,  the  sleeves,  the  bows,  and 
you  need  go  no  further  to  know  that  the  brush  of 
Velasquez  is  not  here.  It  is  a  school  piece. 


192  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

12.    Don  Balthasar  Carlos  in  Infancy.      Probably 

a  workshop  picture,  done  under  Velasquez's  eye, 
but  not  by  his  hand.  The  catalogue  points  out 
(with  candor)  that  the  tassel,  cushion,  and  cur- 
tain are  painted  by  another  hand  than  that  of 
Velasquez;  but  is  not  the  same  hand  apparent  in 
the  dress,  the  sash,  the  collar,  the  hair?  The  bead- 
like  eyes — how  different  they  are  from  those  usu- 
ally painted  by  Velasquez !  It  is  a  very  good  por- 
trait, but  has  not  the  distinct  touch  of  Velasquez 
in  it.  Mr.  MacColl  thinks  with  Northcote  that 
Sir  Joshua  repainted  it. 

6.    Don  Balthasar  Carlos  in  the  Riding-School. 

The  face  and  hair  of  the  rider  are  quite  in  the 
Velasquez  vein  as  though  the  master  himself  had 
touched  them;  but  the  rest  of  the  picture  is  un- 
certain in  its  drawing  and  handling.  The  dis- 
tant figures  and  the  buildings  against  the  sky 
are  well  given.  The  landscape,  the  dark  light- 
ing, the  colour,  the  handling  of  the  blacks  and 
whites  indicate  Mazo's  hand.  A  more  elaborated 
version  is  at  Grosvenor  House. 

80.  Velde,  Adriaen  van  de.  Departure  of  Jacob 
into  Egypt.  With  a  glassy  sky  and  smoothly 
painted  figures,  but  a  considerable  picture  in  size 
and  mountain  forms  for  Adriaen  van  de  Velde. 
The  light  is,  of  course,  impossible  under  that 
blue  sky.  It  was  sacrificed  in  order  to  make  the 
figures  and  animals  pop  out  of  the  darkness.  And 
they  do  "pop." 

137.  Velde,  Willem  van  de.  Shipping  in  a  Calm. 
It  is  large  and  not  too  fine  in  quality — not  as  fine 
as  some  of  the  painter's  smaller  pictures.  No.  77 
is  the  same  kind  of  a  picture. 


WYNANTS  193 

19.     Venetian     School.      Venus     Disarming     Cupid. 

The  chances  are  that  it  is  by  some  assistant  or  im- 
itator of  Titian  not  far  removed  from  that  mas- 
ter himself.  The  bad  drawing  in  the  hands,  arms, 
and  knees  of  the  Venus,  or  the  crudeness  of  the 
trees  and  hills,  as  of  the  bow  and  quiver,  are  not 
wholly  to  be  accounted  for  by  repainting.  The 
forehead,  brows,  and  nose  are  now  hard  through 
restoration,  but  perhaps  they  were  never  very 
melting  in  their  contours.  It  is  a  Titianesque 
canvas  that  was  once  listed  as  a  Giorgione  and 
still  has  some  affinity  with  the  Giorgionesque 
Rustic  Concert  of  the  Louvre. 

18.  VOS,  Cornells  de.  Portrait  of  a  Flemish  Gentle- 
man. It  is  a  smooth  and  shiny  portrait  with 
a  china  ruff  about  the  gentleman's  neck.  It  is, 
however,  very  accurately  drawn  and  has  con- 
siderable dignity  about  it. 

22.  -  —Portrait  of  a  Flemish  Lady.  This  is  a  bet- 
ter portrait  than  No.  18,  though  of  the  same  gen- 
eral character.  It  is  quite  elaborate  in  the  back- 
ground with  a  suggestion  of  Pieter  de  Hooch's 
rich  interiors.  Both  pictures,  perhaps,  suffer  as 
portraits  because  of  their  elaborate  accessory 
objects.  Also  by  the  framing  under  glass. 

.87.  Wouwerman,  Philips.  Coast  Scene  with  Fig- 
ures. A  delightful  little  picture.  Note  the  ex- 
cellent painting  of  the  figures  and  their  pictur- 
esque colourings  against  that  grey  sea.  When 
Wouwerman  forgets  his  mannerisms  he  commands 
instant  admiration.  See  also  the  grey  decorative 
landscape  No.  218. 

160.  WynantS,  Jan.  Landscape  with  Cattle.  A  good 
example  of  the  Dutch  landscape  formula  in  the 


194  WALLACE  COLLECTION 

hands  of  Wynants.  He  employed  the  same  dull 
grey  colour  and  light  as  Ruisdael,  Hobbema,  and 
Van  Goyen.  They  all  of  them  concocted  land- 
scapes in  the  studio,  following  tradition,  and  ap- 
parently with  little  love  or  care  for  nature  itself. 


INDEX  OF  PICTURES  BY  NUMBERS 


i. 

2. 

4. 

6. 

8. 

9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
131 
14  J 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 
30. 
34] 
46  J 
49. 
50. 
52. 
53. 


Cima. 

Bianchi. 

Mazo. 

Velasquez. 

Luini. 

Sarto,  A.  del. 

Luini. 

Titian. 

Velasquez. 

Murillo. 

Cano. 

Dyck,  A.  van. 

Ostade,  I.  van. 

Vos,  C.  de. 

Venetian  School. 

Maes. 

Vos,  C.  de. 

Hooch,  P.  de. 

Both. 

Pourbus,  Frans. 

Hooch,  P.  de. 

Both. 

Rembrandt. 

Rubens. 

Murillo. 

Cuyp. 
Ruisdael,  J. 
Rembrandt. 
Dyck,  A.  van. 


55. 

Rembrandt. 

56. 

Ruisdael,  J. 

61. 

Drost. 

63. 

Rubens. 

66. 

Mierevelt. 

68. 

Murillo. 

71. 

Rubens. 

74. 

Bol. 

75. 

Hobbema. 

78. 

Flinck. 

79. 

Dyck,  A.  van. 

80. 

Velde,  A.  van  de. 

81. 

Rubens. 

82. 

Rembrandt. 

84. 

Hals. 

85. 

Dyck,  A.  van. 

86. 

Rembrandt. 

88. 

Velasquez. 

89. 

Backer. 

90. 

Rembrandt. 

92. 

Coques. 

93. 

Rubens. 

94. 

Dyck,  A.  van. 

95. 

Hobbema. 

96. 

Maes. 

97. 

Murillo. 

100. 

Velasquez. 

110. 

Heist,  Van  de. 

111. 

Steen. 

113. 

Everdingen. 

114. 

Claude  Lorraine. 

195 

196 


INDEX 


116.    Rosa,  Salvatore. 
120.    Jordaens. 
125.    Claude  Lorraine. 
132.    Camphuijsen. 

137.  Velde,  W.  van  de. 

138.  Cuyp. 
150.    Steen. 

153.  Dietrich. 

154.  Steen. 
160.    Wynants. 
166.    Boursse. 
173.    Rembrandt. 
177.    Dou. 

180.    Cuyp. 

187.   Wouwerman. 

189.    Potter. 

201.  Rembrandt. 

202.  Ostade,  A.  van. 

203.  Rembrandt. 

209.  Steen. 

210.  Teniers. 

211.  Brouwer. 

217.    Neer,  A.  van  der. 
219.    Potter. 
224.    Maes. 


Metsu. 


227.    Teniers. 
229.    Rembrandt. 
231.    Teniers. 

236.  Terborch. 

237.  Netscher. 

238.  Rembrandt. 
240  \ 

242  / 
248.    Bakhuysen. 
247.   Ruisdael,  J. 
498.    Canaletto. 
517.    Guardi. 
525.    Beccafumi. 
527.    Crivelli. 

531.  Pourbus,  P. 

532.  Corneille  de  Lyon. 

536.  Ferrarese  School. 

537.  Luini. 

538.  Foppa. 

539.  Ferrarese  School. 
541.   Italian  School. 

543.    Benvenuto  di  Giovanni. 
548.   Flemish  School. 
556.   Florentine  School. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


FEB  80 


•;Y  USE 
1    1956 


9Aug'56LT 


7  /956 


50m-7.'16 


393595 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


